Jump to content

"You got what you deserved"


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
You can say that all you like, but it's not true. The family did not pursue the teacher. They pursued corrections of his improper remarks, and that is what they finally achieved. It is not their fault that the BoE had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it. And even if the family had planned it, which there is no evidence that they did, that wouldn't change the impropriety of the teacher's comments by one iota.

As for me, you don't know how long I've been posting here. I've been posting here as "Guest" for months, just like you just did. Of course, now that I've taken on a name, at least for a while, you religious nutcakes think you've got it all figured out. "I must not know anything about it." Every time someone disagrees with you, you always invent an explanation. Your religion teaches you to do that. If you believe it, it's true. It's true because you want it to be. And if you don't want to believe it, then it isn't true. And before you know it, you've made your opinion the central force in the whole universe, and you don't even realize you've done it. You have no idea how easy you are to manipulate or how dangerous that makes you to our community, our country and the world. And I mean that very sincerely.

Calling people names. I guess you've exposed your true nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest
It doesn't matter. The burden of proving an accusation falls to the accuser, not the accused. Guest offered no supporting evidence whatsoever. No witness accounts. No explanation of how he/she might have known this. Nothing. Just a bare assertion. And when Guest's first accusation missed the mark, he just aimed at a different spot and fired again.

Why would Guest have done that, other than if he himself accepted Paul's refutation as credible? If Guest had anything to support his claim, he could have trotted it out, and not only vindicated his accusation, but could have caught Paul in a lie as well. But that didn't happen, did it? When has that ever happened?

That's great, for a court room. We are here for discussion and opinion. Paul opened the conversation and all along he wanted to pick and choose what he wanted to reveal.

Mr. P was wrong and the administrators and BOE could have handled it better. However, there is nothing you can say that will make me believe that this wasn't another calculated antic by Paul and Matt to forward an agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Proving yet again that you don't have a brain in your head, or anywhere else for that matter. It doesn't matter what Matt did some other time. He caught a fundie nutjob in the act. Period.

It's not about Matt. It's about what's appropriate in a public school and what isn't. Matt was the only one willing to carry that ball. Any other kid doing the same thing would have received the same support.

And give me a freaking break. Dinosaurs on Noah's ark?! How thick can one persons' head be?

According to a number of Paul's posts it is about Matt. But he's a hero, the BOE says so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
What makes you so sure he isn't? Is your default judgment to assume someone is a liar?

Paszkiewicz's supporters have been caught in tons of lies about this whole situation. On the other hand, the worst "lie" one can attribute to Paul is semantic niggling about the word "dress," which isn't even in the same ballpark.

In this forum Matt's motives and agenda can be judged by his past actions, even if you don't like it that way.

And technically it was a dress not a skirt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Can you tell us what Matt's ongoing antics were?

Even if Matt were a mass murderer or delusional or an addict it still would not excuse what Paszkiewicz did.

Matt's past games have been discussed here before.

I never excused Mr. P, the BOE, or the administrators.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melanie
Calling people names.  I guess you've exposed your true nature.

You make up stuff about a teenager, try to turn the community against him, completely distort what happened, and then you say this? We all know what the people from Mr. P's church did. Are you one of them?

And to top it off, that's all you've got to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In this forum Matt's motives and agenda can be judged by his past actions, even if you don't like it that way.

And yet the "motives and agenda" that have been assigned to him by Mr. P.'s apologists are inconsistent with his actions, not to mention that they make no real difference when it comes to the merit of his actual actions in this circumstance.

And technically it was a dress not a skirt.

Well, thanks for proving my point about that. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You make up stuff about a teenager, try to turn the community against him, completely distort what happened, and then you say this? We all know what the people from Mr. P's church did. Are you one of them?

And to top it off, that's all you've got to say.

Mr. P was wrong. However, Matt's pusuit of justice could have cost Mr. P his job and career. Paul could have reported Mr. P's actions, had Matt moved to another class and been done with this issue.

I find it to be a huge contradiction when Paul complains about over punishing someone yet he chose a path that could have destoyed this man's ability to support himself and his family. And for what? A social experiment.

I wonder how Paul and Matt would have felt if Mr. P had been fired and couldn't get another teaching job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt did nothing of importance.  People can judge his motives by his previous actions.  You don't like it but that's the way it is.  This isn't a courtroom where you can order us not to consider evidence.  Have you ever stopped to read the minutes of a BOE meeting.  Do you even realize the problems that they're dealing with.  Take a look at some of the discipline issues.  They've got kids on suspension for the entire school year, only allowing them back after psychological exams are performed and anger management classes are completed and you're worried about some silly Noah's Ark statements.

You're the one that is only worried about your little world and you can't even see that.  You don't know anything about me but you label me as part of some church.  You claim to be so tolerent but you hate the people you label as "fundies".  From the looks of it you're about as fundementalist as it gets when it comes to your own beliefs. 

Tell us Paul, what do you consider real news?  Aren't they all reading off of teleprompters? Giving one slant or another to some story.  What makes you think the version your watching or reading is any better or more accurate.

What does my name or screen name have to do with anything? Do you think that because you post your name that your opinion is more valid? I've had plenty of chances to see how the school system works.  I've never seen a parent kept out of a meeting that their minor child was in.  Your claim doesn't make common sense.  And if it doesn't make sense there is probably something you're not telling us.

You say the current administration is completely inept, but you give us no alternatives.  Who do you want in there, Gore, Kerry? You want to fight a war on terror but you don't want to fight it in Iraq or Afghanistan.  So tell us where would you like it to be fought?

I think saluting the flag and saying the pledge once in awhile is a nice way to express your gratitude for being lucky enough to live in this country.  It shows respect for a concept that many people put their lives on the line for.  I may not be Thomas Jefferson or Matt LaClair, but that's what I can do at that moment.

So specifically what are you doing to save us from all of those nasty things that you mentioned?

How do I even begin to unravel the biases and assumptions in this post?

1. I’m a lawyer, not a judge. I don’t order anybody to do anything.

2. You’re right that the Board of Education has other important issues to address. I presume you have pressing issues in your own life. So why aren’t you tending to those personal matters, or opening a topic to discuss Kearny BoE issues instead of spending your time on this? Do you really not see yourself, criticizing me for spending time on this matter, and then doing the same thing yourself? This is my son we’re talking about. That gives me a little leeway, don’t you think? And I think these issues are important. What’s your excuse if it’s so unimportant?

3. This is not a silly issue. It’s silly to you, maybe, but not to those of us who understand why church-state separation and the teaching of solid science are important. Matthew did several things that are very important:

A. He stood up for church-state separation;

B. He stood up for the integrity of the science curriculum; the statement about dinosaurs on Noah’s ark is silly, but it was made in all seriousness by a teacher who was babbling nonsense; it seems to me that when teachers babble nonsense in the classroom, they are undercutting what they are there to do, and undermining the very fabric of our school;

C. He stood up for the quality of education in general by calling to account a teacher whose methods and ramblings were profoundly opposed to sound educational theory and practice;

D. He reminded the community and eventually the nation of the value of taking a stand at a very dark time in our national history, when such a message was sorely needed – a small reminder to be sure, but the one he was in a position to offer; he’d be happy to make a contribution in another area, and perhaps one day he will, but for now this is what he was able to do and he did it;

E. He reminded his classmates, and maybe others, that life is about more than going along with the teacher or one’s friends so as to fit in; he reminded them that integrity counts; many of them haven’t really heard him yet but I believe one day they will.

4. I am not the only one worried about these issues, as would be obvious to you if you hadn’t shut out of your mind all the posts, interviews, blogs, editorials, etc., in support of the young man I proudly call my son.

5. I think I made clear enough what I consider to be real news and some of the real issues confronting our nation, our culture and our world. There are many of them. We barely begin to look at any of them, even in presidential campaigns. Instead, news has turned into entertainment. Watch the film “Network,” which makes the point far better than I can. We are becoming lazy as a people and indifferent to our democracy, especially individual freedom and thought; if that continues we will not have a democracy for much longer, or much freedom either. I truly believe that. You are free to disagree, but that is my view, and Matthew shares some of those concerns.

6. Yes, Gore and Kerry both would have been better than Bush. So would McCain, Lugar, Hegel and dozens of other Republicans and Democrats I could easily name without thinking about it very hard. It’s not hard to be better than the worst president in history. And good grief, you criticize me for not “offering you an alternative?” Am I responsible for offering you another president? Do you see how deep your biases run?

7. I think saluting the flag and saying the pledge once in a while is a nice way to express our gratitude for being lucky enough to live in this country, too. I completely agree with you. My point, and Matthew’s, is that when that’s all someone does to express their patriotism, they’re missing the point; and when the ritual becomes so deeply embedded that people confuse it with real patriotism, and insist that everyone must do it, then it becomes something negative instead of something positive.

8. People are free to judge Matthew’s motives, you’re entirely right about that. However, I believe that a civil and responsible person does not judge another’s motives without a very solid foundation. And since I know the young man very well, I know how unfounded the accusations are, not to mention how transparent the biases against him are.

9. The point about your name is that you’re making accusations. If you’re going to do that, you should tell me who you are.

10. As for saving you from all the nasty things that might happen, I don't see how I'm in a position to save you from anything. All I can do is act on my commitments as best I can while also trying to see to it that two kids get through college.

I’ve tried to answer all your questions. I don’t agree with you, but I do appreciate your expressing your views, which is not always what happens here. Very sincerely, the best of luck to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's great, for a court room.  We are here for discussion and opinion.  Paul opened the conversation and all along he wanted to pick and choose what he wanted to reveal. 

Mr. P was wrong and the administrators and BOE could have handled it better.  However, there is nothing you can say that will make me believe that this wasn't another calculated antic by Paul and Matt to forward an agenda.

I've said this before: We had several agendas. See my post above, especially item 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. P was wrong.  However, Matt's pusuit of justice could have cost Mr. P his job and career.  Paul could have reported Mr. P's actions, had Matt moved to another class and been done with this issue. 

I find it to be a huge contradiction when Paul complains about over punishing someone yet he chose a path that could have destoyed this man's ability to support himself and his family.  And for what? A social experiment.

I wonder how Paul and Matt would have felt if Mr. P had been fired and couldn't get another teaching job.

Pardon me, but it was not Matt's pursuit of justice that could have cost Mr. P his job and career. It was Mr. P's own conduct. Frankly, had I known how poorly he would have handled the matter I would not have been as conciliatory in my comments toward him as I was. The suggestion that it would be our fault if he loses his job and cannot find another one is ridiculous. So you have the answer to your question. The man has a family to feed. He should grow up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Mr. P was wrong.  However, Matt's pusuit of justice could have cost Mr. P his job and career.  Paul could have reported Mr. P's actions, had Matt moved to another class and been done with this issue. 

I find it to be a huge contradiction when Paul complains about over punishing someone yet he chose a path that could have destoyed this man's ability to support himself and his family.  And for what? A social experiment.

I wonder how Paul and Matt would have felt if Mr. P had been fired and couldn't get another teaching job.

The education of our children is not a mere social experiment. Neither is religious liberty.

It keeps coming back to the same thing. Paul and Matt understand the importance of these issues. You don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. P was wrong.  However, Matt's pusuit of justice could have cost Mr. P his job and career.  Paul could have reported Mr. P's actions, had Matt moved to another class and been done with this issue.

Except that the "issue" wasn't personal discomfort of Matt's, but the principle of the teachers inappropriate teaching methods. Remove Matthew quietly, and he would continue crossing the line where he shouldn't. In fact, from what I'm hearing, this is exactly what he has started to do again in Matthew's absence. :huh:

I find it to be a huge contradiction when Paul complains about over punishing someone yet he chose a path that could have destoyed this man's ability to support himself and his family.

Um, as I remember it, Paul specifically avoided going after Paszkiewicz himself, despite having every justification for doing so, as a result of, on top of his inappropriate behavior, Paszkiewicz's brash denial of any wrongdoing and even playing the victim (!).

And for what? A social experiment.

Is that really all you think this is?

I wonder how Paul and Matt would have felt if Mr. P had been fired and couldn't get another teaching job.

I can't speak for them, but I will say that personally, it's very hard to feel sorry for someone who is keeping their job only because no one has yet exposed their blatant and inexcusable wrongdoing and taken them to task for it. Would you really hold the LaClairs responsible if Paskiewicz had lost his job as a result of Matthew's exposition of his transgressions? Honestly--would you truly fault the LaClairs for what came out of Paszkiewicz's mouth? Really?

Link to post
Share on other sites
How do I even begin to unravel the biases and assumptions in this post?

Good question (taking irony into account).

1. I’m a lawyer, not a judge. I don’t order anybody to do anything.

Thus, he doesn't really mean it when he tells the guest to reveal his name if he's going to accuse people.

Either that or he orders people to do things.

2. You’re right that the Board of Education has other important issues to address. I presume you have pressing issues in your own life. So why aren’t you tending to those personal matters, or opening a topic to discuss Kearny BoE issues instead of spending your time on this? Do you really not see yourself, criticizing me for spending time on this matter, and then doing the same thing yourself? This is my son we’re talking about. That gives me a little leeway, don’t you think? And I think these issues are important. What’s your excuse if it’s so unimportant?

Maybe he noticed the way you've spring-boarded to an anti-religious stance?

3. This is not a silly issue. It’s silly to you, maybe, but not to those of us who understand why church-state separation and the teaching of solid science are important.

Except that Paul has manifested an error-prone understanding of church-state separation and a failure to understand science himself (see the Deists won and the Big Bang began with very dense matter).

Matthew did several things that are very important:

A. He stood up for church-state separation;

Matthew would have kept his rear end in his seat if human-based morality had been taught in school. Matthew stood up for keeping certain views out of the classroom--and wrapped himself in the Constitution for the occasion.

His nobility in this case was as thin as his tolerance for hearing Christian dogma.

B. He stood up for the integrity of the science curriculum; the statement about dinosaurs on Noah’s ark is silly, but it was made in all seriousness by a teacher who was babbling nonsense; it seems to me that when teachers babble nonsense in the classroom, they are undercutting what they are there to do, and undermining the very fabric of our school;

The "statement" about dinosaurs was "I will answer that question. Short answer, yes, and it was a problem; I'll explain that."

(Dranger transcript)

In point of fact, Paszkiewicz offered up a pretty solid layman's account of epistemology. Matthew LaClair was apparently offended by the references to religion (not enough to stop asking questions about it, of course) and failed to allow the lesson to improve his approach to epistemology.

C. He stood up for the quality of education in general by calling to account a teacher whose methods and ramblings were profoundly opposed to sound educational theory and practice;

Looks like the dreaded LaClair Assertion Without Evidence (LAWe).

D. He reminded the community and eventually the nation of the value of taking a stand at a very dark time in our national history, when such a message was sorely needed – a small reminder to be sure, but the one he was in a position to offer; he’d be happy to make a contribution in another area, and perhaps one day he will, but for now this is what he was able to do and he did it;

Anybody need a hankie?

E. He reminded his classmates, and maybe others, that life is about more than going along with the teacher or one’s friends so as to fit in; he reminded them that integrity counts; many of them haven’t really heard him yet but I believe one day they will.

I think it's extremely likely that most of the students in the class realize that it reflected a lack of integrity on young LaClair's part to offer Paszkiewicz's statements out-of-context in his letter of complaint and during the meeting with Mr. Somma.

If anything explains the ill treatment Matthew is said to have received, that would be it (not that violence or abusive speech would in any way be justified by Matthew's lack of integrity).

4. I am not the only one worried about these issues, as would be obvious to you if you hadn’t shut out of your mind all the posts, interviews, blogs, editorials, etc., in support of the young man I proudly call my son.

Dad takes statements out of context, too, we should note.

5. I think I made clear enough what I consider to be real news and some of the real issues confronting our nation, our culture and our world. There are many of them. We barely begin to look at any of them, even in presidential campaigns. Instead, news has turned into entertainment. Watch the film “Network,” which makes the point far better than I can. We are becoming lazy as a people and indifferent to our democracy, especially individual freedom and thought; if that continues we will not have a democracy for much longer, or much freedom either. I truly believe that. You are free to disagree, but that is my view, and Matthew shares some of those concerns.

Don't forget to boycott Exxon-Mobil, everybody!

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...972entry55972

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=56004

6. Yes, Gore and Kerry both would have been better than Bush. So would McCain, Lugar, Hegel and dozens of other Republicans and Democrats I could easily name without thinking about it very hard. It’s not hard to be better than the worst president in history. And good grief, you criticize me for not “offering you an alternative?” Am I responsible for offering you another president? Do you see how deep your biases run?

Jimmy Carter remains unchallenged as the worst president in modern US history, and is unquestionably the worst ex-president in the nation's entire history (his work for Habitat for Humanity is an outstanding exception to the indictment).

Paszkiewicz is correct about Bush. His handling of the economy and his initiative to confront terrorism remain extremely likely to put him in a good historical light.

Has anyone checked Congress' approval rating lately?

7. I think saluting the flag and saying the pledge once in a while is a nice way to express our gratitude for being lucky enough to live in this country, too. I completely agree with you. My point, and Matthew’s, is that when that’s all someone does to express their patriotism, they’re missing the point; and when the ritual becomes so deeply embedded that people confuse it with real patriotism, and insist that everyone must do it, then it becomes something negative instead of something positive.

... and the grandstanding method of making the point was just gravy.

8. People are free to judge Matthew’s motives, you’re entirely right about that. However, I believe that a civil and responsible person does not judge another’s motives without a very solid foundation. And since I know the young man very well, I know how unfounded the accusations are, not to mention how transparent the biases against him are.

You wouldn't dispute the fact that he offered up a list of quotations from Paszkiewicz that were taken out of context, would you?

9. The point about your name is that you’re making accusations. If you’re going to do that, you should tell me who you are.

Ha ha! Just kidding! Paul doesn't order people around.

:huh:

On a serious note, I do think--and I believe Paul probably agrees with me--that one who is trying to engage in serious discussion should take on an identity for that purpose.

If you just want to take your one hack and go, then fine--post as "Guest." If you want to engage in back-and-forth dialog, adopt a name as a minimal courtesy to others.

That goes for both sides.

10. As for saving you from all the nasty things that might happen, I don't see how I'm in a position to save you from anything. All I can do is act on my commitments as best I can while also trying to see to it that two kids get through college.

For #10 I'll wish LaClair the best. I trust that overall (even if I have strong suspicions about some specifics) Paul is acting according to conscience. There's some honor in that, and regardless of anything else that is said I wish the best for him and his family.

He's acting on a bundle of mistaken notions, unfortunately, but that's what the discussions are for.

I’ve tried to answer all your questions. I don’t agree with you, but I do appreciate your expressing your views, which is not always what happens here. Very sincerely, the best of luck to you.

A nice sentiment, and it's nice to see Paul reciprocating by answering some questions (not to imply that it's a first or anything--but I know I've asked him quite a few that I wish he'd try to address).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Good question (taking irony into account).

Thus, he doesn't really mean it when he tells the guest to reveal his name if he's going to accuse people.

Either that or he orders people to do things.

Maybe he noticed the way you've spring-boarded to an anti-religious stance?

Except that Paul has manifested an error-prone understanding of church-state separation and a failure to understand science himself (see the Deists won and the Big Bang began with very dense matter).

Matthew would have kept his rear end in his seat if human-based morality had been taught in school.  Matthew stood up for keeping certain views out of the classroom--and wrapped himself in the Constitution for the occasion.

His nobility in this case was as thin as his tolerance for hearing Christian dogma.

The "statement" about dinosaurs was "I will answer that question. Short answer, yes, and it was a problem; I'll explain that."

(Dranger transcript)

In point of fact, Paszkiewicz offered up a pretty solid layman's account of epistemology.  Matthew LaClair was apparently offended by the references to religion (not enough to stop asking questions about it, of course) and failed to allow the lesson to improve his approach to epistemology.

Looks like the dreaded LaClair Assertion Without Evidence (LAWe).

Anybody need a hankie?

I think it's extremely likely that most of the students in the class realize that it reflected a lack of integrity on young LaClair's part to offer Paszkiewicz's statements out-of-context in his letter of complaint and during the meeting with Mr. Somma.

If anything explains the ill treatment Matthew is said to have received, that would be it (not that violence or abusive speech would in any way be justified by Matthew's lack of integrity).

Dad takes statements out of context, too, we should note.

5. I think I made clear enough what I consider to be real news and some of the real issues confronting our nation, our culture and our world. There are many of them. We barely begin to look at any of them, even in presidential campaigns. Instead, news has turned into entertainment. Watch the film “Network,” which makes the point far better than I can. We are becoming lazy as a people and indifferent to our democracy, especially individual freedom and thought; if that continues we will not have a democracy for much longer, or much freedom either. I truly believe that. You are free to disagree, but that is my view, and Matthew shares some of those concerns.

Don't forget to boycott Exxon-Mobil, everybody!

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...972entry55972

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=56004

6. Yes, Gore and Kerry both would have been better than Bush. So would McCain, Lugar, Hegel and dozens of other Republicans and Democrats I could easily name without thinking about it very hard. It’s not hard to be better than the worst president in history. And good grief, you criticize me for not “offering you an alternative?” Am I responsible for offering you another president? Do you see how deep your biases run?

Jimmy Carter remains unchallenged as the worst president in modern US history, and is unquestionably the worst ex-president in the nation's entire history (his work for Habitat for Humanity is an outstanding exception to the indictment).

Paszkiewicz is correct about Bush.  His handling of the economy and his initiative to confront terrorism remain extremely likely to put him in a good historical light.

Has anyone checked Congress' approval rating lately?

7. I think saluting the flag and saying the pledge once in a while is a nice way to express our gratitude for being lucky enough to live in this country, too. I completely agree with you. My point, and Matthew’s, is that when that’s all someone does to express their patriotism, they’re missing the point; and when the ritual becomes so deeply embedded that people confuse it with real patriotism, and insist that everyone must do it, then it becomes something negative instead of something positive.

... and the grandstanding method of making the point was just gravy.

8. People are free to judge Matthew’s motives, you’re entirely right about that. However, I believe that a civil and responsible person does not judge another’s motives without a very solid foundation. And since I know the young man very well, I know how unfounded the accusations are, not to mention how transparent the biases against him are.

You wouldn't dispute the fact that he offered up a list of quotations from Paszkiewicz that were taken out of context, would you?

9.  The point about your name is that you’re making accusations. If you’re going to do that, you should tell me who you are.

Ha ha!  Just kidding!  Paul doesn't order people around. 

:huh:

On a serious note, I do think--and I believe Paul probably agrees with me--that one who is trying to engage in serious discussion should take on an identity for that purpose.

If you just want to take your one hack and go, then fine--post as "Guest."  If you want to engage in back-and-forth dialog, adopt a name as a minimal courtesy to others.

That goes for both sides.

10. As for saving you from all the nasty things that might happen, I don't see how I'm in a position to save you from anything. All I can do is act on my commitments as best I can while also trying to see to it that two kids get through college.

For #10 I'll wish LaClair the best.  I trust that overall (even if I have strong suspicions about some specifics) Paul is acting according to conscience.  There's some honor in that, and regardless of anything else that is said I wish the best for him and his family.

He's acting on a bundle of mistaken notions, unfortunately, but that's what the discussions are for.

I’ve tried to answer all your questions. I don’t agree with you, but I do appreciate your expressing your views, which is not always what happens here. Very sincerely, the best of luck to you.

A nice sentiment, and it's nice to see Paul reciprocating by answering some questions (not to imply that it's a first or anything--but I know I've asked him quite a few that I wish he'd try to address).

Paul wrote a brief post in another topic awhile back saying he had put you on ignore. Perhaps that is why you haven't heard from him.

Your comments are delusional. There's no point going into the specifics. You just keep asserting your conclusions as fact, which they are not. We've been over all of it.

However, I will point out that Paul's point regarding Guest posts is that someone who is going to make accusations of another person should reveal who he is. It was stated as a request couched in a moral obligation, but not an order. Paul doesn't have the power, certainly on KOTW, to order anyone to do anything, and I'm sure he knows that.

I will also point out to you that for someone who insists that everyone else should confine themselves strictly to logical responses to your arguments, you certainly have posted up quite a few snotty retorts here. Apparently Paul was persuasive on those points even to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
7. I think saluting the flag and saying the pledge once in a while is a nice way to express our gratitude for being lucky enough to live in this country, too. I completely agree with you. My point, and Matthew’s, is that when that’s all someone does to express their patriotism, they’re missing the point; and when the ritual becomes so deeply embedded that people confuse it with real patriotism, and insist that everyone must do it, then it becomes something negative instead of something positive.

... and the grandstanding method of making the point was just gravy.

Grandstanding? Matthew sat quietly in his chair while others participated in the recitation. When people began verbally and physically assaulting him, attention was drawn to it. Eventually, two students wrote a letter to the Observer questioning his motives. He responded and explained his position and his reasons. He did not initiate that discussion. He was gratuitously smeared in the local newspaper and he responded. It was the people who raised a fuss about his non-conformance who called attention to the issue. All he did was stand his ground and answer a baseless and unkind series of allegations. And when he didn't back down he was vilified even further. How is that grandstanding? Please explain, not by guessing what you think his motives were (since you don't know), but by addressing what actually happened.

What he did is no different from what people do who take unpopular stands. They are attacked and immediately seen as the villains because they're pointing out to others what they do not wish to see. So all the charactizing is directed at him, but it is a misdirection. Make an argument from the facts if you can, not from your biases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul wrote a brief post in another topic awhile back saying he had put you on ignore. Perhaps that is why you haven't heard from him.

Huh. I guess that means he doesn't intend to apologize for misrepresenting my position, either, like he did here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...641entry60641

But, on the positive side, he might misrepresent me less if he ignores my posts.

How much you want to bet that he peeks within a month?

:huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melanie
If only Mr. P had talked about being a Humanist or supporting the Human Fund or whatever Matt's belief system is.

The fact that you don't know says a lot about Matt's restraint. Obviously he hasn't tried to push his religion in opposition to Paszkiewicz's, even though he has every right to do it. If he had, you would know what it is.

These fundies live in a fantasy world. Human Fund? As opposed to what, a fund for a retirement home for elderly gods? If Matt ever gets a teacher who starts proselytizing in a public school for Humanism to the exclusion of other religions, then he'll have the opportunity to be consistent or not, but until that day our disgruntled guest has no basis for attacking him. It's just the usual whining because the fundies didn't get their way. He smacked down their boy and he did it in a way that Paszkiewicz couldn't wiggle out of. They don't like it, and apparently they're never going to stop whining about it.

Finally and maybe most important, do fundies hate people? Look how this is phrased. "Guest" assumes and implies a conflict between Christianity (Paszkiewicz's religion) and humans. Tells you a lot about where their way "thinking" leads. It's not a place I want to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...