Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

A student of uncommon courage

Recommended Posts

No, more likely that it was sneaky and underhanded

Do you consider putting a hidden camera to catch shoplifters equally "sneaky and underhanded?"

and it was meant to advance an agenda.

68401[/snapback]

You're right. Of course, you assume that "agenda" = bad, but I think the agenda of preserving/upholding and standing up for the Constitution is quite respectable, and something our society is sorely lacking. Frankly, I pity those who disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It was done in the only way possible to advance the agenda, which included:

1. Defense of the US Constitution;

2. The integrity of the educational process;

3. The integrity of science education;

4. Religious freedom for everyone, not just those in the majority.

So I proudly agree with you. We did it to advance a very important agenda that is of concern to every thinking person in this country.

68414[/snapback]

Don't forget the chance to fuel Matthew's need for attention. You're living in a dream world Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Do you consider putting a hidden camera to catch shoplifters equally "sneaky and underhanded?"

You're right. Of course, you assume that "agenda" = bad, but I think the agenda of preserving/upholding and standing up for the Constitution is quite respectable, and something our society is sorely lacking. Frankly, I pity those who disagree.

68423[/snapback]

Oh, I didn't know those cameras were there to feed the security guards insatiable need to be noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Don't forget the chance to fuel Matthew's need for attention.  You're living in a dream world Paul.

68454[/snapback]

I hate to call people stupid, but this response is stupid. Instead of addressing the real issues put before you, you ignore them. You can't do that consistent with any intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I hate to call people stupid, but this response is stupid. Instead of addressing the real issues put before you, you ignore them. You can't do that consistent with any intelligence.

68469[/snapback]

We all know you're smarter than everyone and that you have all of the answers. But, just because you don't consider it an issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
No, more likely that it was sneaky and underhanded and it was meant to advance an agenda.

68401[/snapback]

Matthew recorded a teacher without the teacher’s knowledge. Those are facts.

You call it sneaky, but many people call it intelligent, resourceful and necessary. All those words imply not just facts, but also judgments. You’re assuming your judgments. We have made ours explicit, and because you keep using the same empty word I am going to spell out our judgments, and the basis for them, yet again.

What questions would a reasonable person ask in order to decide whether secretly recording a class was appropriate? I suggest the following.

1. Was the conduct in secretly recording the classes within the student’s rights to do? The answer is yes. The recordings did not violate any law or rule in place at the time.

2. Was it done for a good reason? The answer is yes. It was done to protect the student, who planned to take on a popular, tenured teacher. The student correctly predicted, on the basis of the dynamics that were present in the situation, that if he accused the teacher of the conduct at issue, he would not be believed and the matter would be dropped without an appropriate remedy. He was absolutely right. Because he was within his rights, consistent with his sense of a citizen's duty, to call the teacher down and insist on appropriate corrective action, he cannot be expected ethically or morally to back down. Therefore, the recordings were indispensable means of personal defense.

Important issues were at stake, including (a.) the US Constitution, (b.) the integrity of the educational process, (c.) the integrity and quality of science education and (d.) religious freedom. It was obvious that the teacher was at odds with each and every one of those important purposes, and that his behavior had been going on for a long time. Therefore, it was necessary to address that behavior in a decisive fashion.

In addition, a systematic injustice was being perpetrated at that school, an injustice represented by the school of thought that continues to defend this renegade teacher. “Well, this is how we do it in Kearny.” That’s not acceptable. Kearny is a town in the United States of America, subject to the US Constitution, and is at the mercy of the same scientific facts that apply to the rest of the world. Bigotry and ignorance are not acceptable for the school system to condone and promote. Yet there was, and persists, a culture in that school, which condones the teacher's blatantly inappropriate behavior. Nothing short of hard proof was going to overcome that. People are angry with Matthew because he succeeded, and while you may have other motivations, you’re feeding those.

3. Were any alternatives available to the student, except recording, to accomplish those goals? The answer is no.

4. Was recording the classes unfair? The answer is no. It is a public school. The teacher was violating the law and basic educational principles in a myriad of ways. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy and no reasonable grounds to expect that his conduct will not be found out, exposed and stopped.

Had we to do it over, we would have used software to disguise the voices of the students before we released the recordings to press. We continue to believe that no real damage was done to the students, or was likely to be done to them, but if we could have foreseen that the community would be more interested in inconsequential privacy issues pertaining to the students than in blatant transgressions by the teacher, we would have done that one thing differently. However, that does not negate or detract from the importance of the recordings themselves.

Now if you want to continue to label this conduct as “sneaky,” you’re free to do that, but if you want to consider this situation in a moral and ethical light, i.e., in terms of what is right and wrong, then you must address these considerations. I do not believe you can do that and still maintain your position, unless you don’t care about the Constitution, the quality and integrity of education and religious freedom. If you consider those issues in an appropriate and reasonable light, you will not continue to call Matthew's conduct "sneaky."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Actually, from what I'm hearing it's still continuing. Mr. P. is damned lucky both that the LaClairs didn't try to get him fired (they had ample reasons to), and that none of the other students/parents have the guts to stand up to that sort of thing.

68348[/snapback]

Like you always say "where is your proof" ? You loser ! Speaking of lack of guts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I hate to call people stupid, but this response is stupid. Instead of addressing the real issues put before you, you ignore them. You can't do that consistent with any intelligence.

68469[/snapback]

Paul is a buffoon. He says he hates doing something then does it in the same sentence. This is suppose to be our spokeperson speaking out of both ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Matthew recorded a teacher without the teacher’s knowledge. Those are facts.

You call it sneaky, but many people call it intelligent, resourceful and necessary. All those words imply not just facts, but also judgments. You’re assuming your judgments. We have made ours explicit, and because you keep using the same empty word I am going to spell out our judgments, and the basis for them, yet again.

What questions would a reasonable person ask in order to decide whether secretly recording a class was appropriate? I suggest the following.

1. Was the conduct in secretly recording the classes within the student’s rights to do? The answer is yes. The recordings did not violate any law or rule in place at the time.

2. Was it done for a good reason? The answer is yes. It was done to protect the student, who planned to take on a popular, tenured teacher. The student correctly predicted, on the basis of the dynamics that were present in the situation, that if he accused the teacher of the conduct at issue, he would not be believed and the matter would be dropped without an appropriate remedy. He was absolutely right. Because he was within his rights, consistent with his sense of a citizen's duty, to call the teacher down and insist on appropriate corrective action, he cannot be expected ethically or morally to back down. Therefore, the recordings were indispensable means of personal defense.

Important issues were at stake, including (a.) the US Constitution, (b.) the integrity of the educational process, (c.) the integrity and quality of science education and (d.) religious freedom. It was obvious that the teacher was at odds with each and every one of those important purposes, and that his behavior had been going on for a long time. Therefore, it was necessary to address that behavior in a decisive fashion.

In addition, a systematic injustice was being perpetrated at that school, an injustice represented by the school of thought that continues to defend this renegade teacher. “Well, this is how we do it in Kearny.” That’s not acceptable. Kearny is a town in the United States of America, subject to the US Constitution, and is at the mercy of the same scientific facts that apply to the rest of the world. Bigotry and ignorance are not acceptable for the school system to condone and promote. Yet there was, and persists, a culture in that school, which condones the teacher's blatantly inappropriate behavior. Nothing short of hard proof was going to overcome that. People are angry with Matthew because he succeeded, and while you may have other motivations, you’re feeding those.

3. Were any alternatives available to the student, except recording, to accomplish those goals? The answer is no.

4. Was recording the classes unfair? The answer is no. It is a public school. The teacher was violating the law and basic educational principles in a myriad of ways. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy and no reasonable grounds to expect that his conduct will not be found out, exposed and stopped.

Had we to do it over, we would have used software to disguise the voices of the students before we released the recordings to press. We continue to believe that no real damage was done to the students, or was likely to be done to them, but if we could have foreseen that the community would be more interested in inconsequential privacy issues pertaining to the students than in blatant transgressions by the teacher, we would have done that one thing differently. However, that does not negate or detract from the importance of the recordings themselves.

Now if you want to continue to label this conduct as “sneaky,” you’re free to do that, but if you want to consider this situation in a moral and ethical light, i.e., in terms of what is right and wrong, then you must address these considerations. I do not believe you can do that and still maintain your position, unless you don’t care about the Constitution, the quality and integrity of education and religious freedom. If you consider those issues in an appropriate and reasonable light, you will not continue to call Matthew's conduct "sneaky."

68505[/snapback]

If you repeat your lies over and over, does that make it now the truth? There is no getting over what a bad person you really are !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loki
Matthew recorded a teacher without the teacher’s knowledge. Those are facts.

You call it sneaky, but many people call it intelligent, resourceful and necessary. All those words imply not just facts, but also judgments. You’re assuming your judgments. We have made ours explicit, and because you keep using the same empty word I am going to spell out our judgments, and the basis for them, yet again.

What questions would a reasonable person ask in order to decide whether secretly recording a class was appropriate? I suggest the following.

1. Was the conduct in secretly recording the classes within the student’s rights to do? The answer is yes. The recordings did not violate any law or rule in place at the time.

2. Was it done for a good reason? The answer is yes. It was done to protect the student, who planned to take on a popular, tenured teacher. The student correctly predicted, on the basis of the dynamics that were present in the situation, that if he accused the teacher of the conduct at issue, he would not be believed and the matter would be dropped without an appropriate remedy. He was absolutely right. Because he was within his rights, consistent with his sense of a citizen's duty, to call the teacher down and insist on appropriate corrective action, he cannot be expected ethically or morally to back down. Therefore, the recordings were indispensable means of personal defense.

Important issues were at stake, including (a.) the US Constitution, (b.) the integrity of the educational process, (c.) the integrity and quality of science education and (d.) religious freedom. It was obvious that the teacher was at odds with each and every one of those important purposes, and that his behavior had been going on for a long time. Therefore, it was necessary to address that behavior in a decisive fashion.

In addition, a systematic injustice was being perpetrated at that school, an injustice represented by the school of thought that continues to defend this renegade teacher. “Well, this is how we do it in Kearny.” That’s not acceptable. Kearny is a town in the United States of America, subject to the US Constitution, and is at the mercy of the same scientific facts that apply to the rest of the world. Bigotry and ignorance are not acceptable for the school system to condone and promote. Yet there was, and persists, a culture in that school, which condones the teacher's blatantly inappropriate behavior. Nothing short of hard proof was going to overcome that. People are angry with Matthew because he succeeded, and while you may have other motivations, you’re feeding those.

3. Were any alternatives available to the student, except recording, to accomplish those goals? The answer is no.

4. Was recording the classes unfair? The answer is no. It is a public school. The teacher was violating the law and basic educational principles in a myriad of ways. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy and no reasonable grounds to expect that his conduct will not be found out, exposed and stopped.

Had we to do it over, we would have used software to disguise the voices of the students before we released the recordings to press. We continue to believe that no real damage was done to the students, or was likely to be done to them, but if we could have foreseen that the community would be more interested in inconsequential privacy issues pertaining to the students than in blatant transgressions by the teacher, we would have done that one thing differently. However, that does not negate or detract from the importance of the recordings themselves.

Now if you want to continue to label this conduct as “sneaky,” you’re free to do that, but if you want to consider this situation in a moral and ethical light, i.e., in terms of what is right and wrong, then you must address these considerations. I do not believe you can do that and still maintain your position, unless you don’t care about the Constitution, the quality and integrity of education and religious freedom. If you consider those issues in an appropriate and reasonable light, you will not continue to call Matthew's conduct "sneaky."

68505[/snapback]

How about that? According to Paul, Linda Tripp was intelligent, resourceful, and did what was necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
We all know you're smarter than everyone and that you have all of the answers.  But, just because you don't consider it an issue doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

68499[/snapback]

Your argument is about whether Matthew was being "sneaky." As you can see, I addressed that, so you can't intelligently claim that I'm treating it as though it doesn't exist.

I expect the same from you. I respond to your points, you respond to mine, in an intelligent and thoughtful fashion. My point was that your response is stupid because you don't address the other issues or for that matter the issues regarding your own claim. You just use the word without thinking through what it means. And no matter how many times we point out to you why Matthew did it the way he did it, you just ignore all the facts you don't like. Your argument is reflexive, not thoughtful, and when you're challenged to be thoughtful you just ignore everything that doesn't suit you. That's why I called it stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Matthew recorded a teacher without the teacher’s knowledge. Those are facts.

You call it sneaky, but many people call it intelligent, resourceful and necessary. All those words imply not just facts, but also judgments. You’re assuming your judgments. We have made ours explicit, and because you keep using the same empty word I am going to spell out our judgments, and the basis for them, yet again.

What questions would a reasonable person ask in order to decide whether secretly recording a class was appropriate? I suggest the following.

1. Was the conduct in secretly recording the classes within the student’s rights to do? The answer is yes. The recordings did not violate any law or rule in place at the time.

2. Was it done for a good reason? The answer is yes. It was done to protect the student, who planned to take on a popular, tenured teacher. The student correctly predicted, on the basis of the dynamics that were present in the situation, that if he accused the teacher of the conduct at issue, he would not be believed and the matter would be dropped without an appropriate remedy. He was absolutely right. Because he was within his rights, consistent with his sense of a citizen's duty, to call the teacher down and insist on appropriate corrective action, he cannot be expected ethically or morally to back down. Therefore, the recordings were indispensable means of personal defense.

Important issues were at stake, including (a.) the US Constitution, (b.) the integrity of the educational process, (c.) the integrity and quality of science education and (d.) religious freedom. It was obvious that the teacher was at odds with each and every one of those important purposes, and that his behavior had been going on for a long time. Therefore, it was necessary to address that behavior in a decisive fashion.

In addition, a systematic injustice was being perpetrated at that school, an injustice represented by the school of thought that continues to defend this renegade teacher. “Well, this is how we do it in Kearny.” That’s not acceptable. Kearny is a town in the United States of America, subject to the US Constitution, and is at the mercy of the same scientific facts that apply to the rest of the world. Bigotry and ignorance are not acceptable for the school system to condone and promote. Yet there was, and persists, a culture in that school, which condones the teacher's blatantly inappropriate behavior. Nothing short of hard proof was going to overcome that. People are angry with Matthew because he succeeded, and while you may have other motivations, you’re feeding those.

3. Were any alternatives available to the student, except recording, to accomplish those goals? The answer is no.

4. Was recording the classes unfair? The answer is no. It is a public school. The teacher was violating the law and basic educational principles in a myriad of ways. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy and no reasonable grounds to expect that his conduct will not be found out, exposed and stopped.

Had we to do it over, we would have used software to disguise the voices of the students before we released the recordings to press. We continue to believe that no real damage was done to the students, or was likely to be done to them, but if we could have foreseen that the community would be more interested in inconsequential privacy issues pertaining to the students than in blatant transgressions by the teacher, we would have done that one thing differently. However, that does not negate or detract from the importance of the recordings themselves.

Now if you want to continue to label this conduct as “sneaky,” you’re free to do that, but if you want to consider this situation in a moral and ethical light, i.e., in terms of what is right and wrong, then you must address these considerations. I do not believe you can do that and still maintain your position, unless you don’t care about the Constitution, the quality and integrity of education and religious freedom. If you consider those issues in an appropriate and reasonable light, you will not continue to call Matthew's conduct "sneaky."

68505[/snapback]

Isn't it ironic that many people here support our government shredding the Constitution by illegally wiretapping our phone conversations, yet when a young man tapes a teacher in class who may be violating the law with his comments suddenly they have a big problem. Irony...ain't it a B**ch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it ironic that many people here support our government shredding the Constitution by illegally wiretapping our phone conversations, yet when a young man tapes a teacher in class who may be violating the law with his comments suddenly they have a big problem. Irony...ain't it a B**ch?

68550[/snapback]

That’s not irony. It’s due to a sickness of the authoritative personality.

The authoritative personality worships, lusts for approval and will blindly follow the lead of any higher level authoritative leader. Similar to a very obedient dog – the constant craving to please and obey.

When a higher level authority figure does something, no matter how reprehensible, it is always OK to the authoritarian. But, no matter the reason, it is always wrong for lower authority to buck someone representing higher authority. They feel very secure and protected when there are very rigid hierarchies and lines of authority.

This belief and concept was used by Hitler to promote the Führerprinzip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Isn't it ironic that many people here support our government shredding the Constitution by illegally wiretapping our phone conversations, yet when a young man tapes a teacher in class who may be violating the law with his comments suddenly they have a big problem. Irony...ain't it a B**ch?

68550[/snapback]

I'd say trying to stop terror cells from operating freely in this country is slightly more important than an attention seeking high school student.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Matthew recorded a teacher without the teacher’s knowledge. Those are facts.

You call it sneaky, but many people call it intelligent, resourceful and necessary. All those words imply not just facts, but also judgments. You’re assuming your judgments. We have made ours explicit, and because you keep using the same empty word I am going to spell out our judgments, and the basis for them, yet again.

What questions would a reasonable person ask in order to decide whether secretly recording a class was appropriate? I suggest the following.

1. Was the conduct in secretly recording the classes within the student’s rights to do? The answer is yes. The recordings did not violate any law or rule in place at the time.

2. Was it done for a good reason? The answer is yes. It was done to protect the student, who planned to take on a popular, tenured teacher. The student correctly predicted, on the basis of the dynamics that were present in the situation, that if he accused the teacher of the conduct at issue, he would not be believed and the matter would be dropped without an appropriate remedy. He was absolutely right. Because he was within his rights, consistent with his sense of a citizen's duty, to call the teacher down and insist on appropriate corrective action, he cannot be expected ethically or morally to back down. Therefore, the recordings were indispensable means of personal defense.

Important issues were at stake, including (a.) the US Constitution, (b.) the integrity of the educational process, (c.) the integrity and quality of science education and (d.) religious freedom. It was obvious that the teacher was at odds with each and every one of those important purposes, and that his behavior had been going on for a long time. Therefore, it was necessary to address that behavior in a decisive fashion.

In addition, a systematic injustice was being perpetrated at that school, an injustice represented by the school of thought that continues to defend this renegade teacher. “Well, this is how we do it in Kearny.” That’s not acceptable. Kearny is a town in the United States of America, subject to the US Constitution, and is at the mercy of the same scientific facts that apply to the rest of the world. Bigotry and ignorance are not acceptable for the school system to condone and promote. Yet there was, and persists, a culture in that school, which condones the teacher's blatantly inappropriate behavior. Nothing short of hard proof was going to overcome that. People are angry with Matthew because he succeeded, and while you may have other motivations, you’re feeding those.

3. Were any alternatives available to the student, except recording, to accomplish those goals? The answer is no.

4. Was recording the classes unfair? The answer is no. It is a public school. The teacher was violating the law and basic educational principles in a myriad of ways. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy and no reasonable grounds to expect that his conduct will not be found out, exposed and stopped.

Had we to do it over, we would have used software to disguise the voices of the students before we released the recordings to press. We continue to believe that no real damage was done to the students, or was likely to be done to them, but if we could have foreseen that the community would be more interested in inconsequential privacy issues pertaining to the students than in blatant transgressions by the teacher, we would have done that one thing differently. However, that does not negate or detract from the importance of the recordings themselves.

Now if you want to continue to label this conduct as “sneaky,” you’re free to do that, but if you want to consider this situation in a moral and ethical light, i.e., in terms of what is right and wrong, then you must address these considerations. I do not believe you can do that and still maintain your position, unless you don’t care about the Constitution, the quality and integrity of education and religious freedom. If you consider those issues in an appropriate and reasonable light, you will not continue to call Matthew's conduct "sneaky."

68505[/snapback]

There were many alternatives to Matthew's method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
How about that?  According to Paul, Linda Tripp was intelligent, resourceful, and did what was necessary.

68515[/snapback]

What Linda Tripp did was illegal in the state in which she did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Isn't it ironic that many people here support our government shredding the Constitution by illegally wiretapping our phone conversations, yet when a young man tapes a teacher in class who may be violating the law with his comments suddenly they have a big problem. Irony...ain't it a B**ch?

68550[/snapback]

Yuuup. And not a one of them has a single thing of any content to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Isn't it ironic that many people here support our government shredding the Constitution by illegally wiretapping our phone conversations, yet when a young man tapes a teacher in class who may be violating the law with his comments suddenly they have a big problem. Irony...ain't it a B**ch?

68550[/snapback]

Amazing, this ***** ** * kid gets away with an illegal act and gains National attention, and his father (what else a lawyer) defends his sons illegal act. WHAT A COUNTRY, WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Paul?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Amazing, this ***** ** * kid gets away with an illegal act and gains National attention, and his father (what else a lawyer) defends his sons illegal act. WHAT A COUNTRY, WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Paul?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

68611[/snapback]

It wasn't an illegal act. You don't know what you're "talking" about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
There were many alternatives to Matthew's method.

68566[/snapback]

Like what? If there were many alternatives, which would have accomplished all his objectives, then why can't you name even one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
I'd say trying to stop terror cells from operating freely in this country is slightly more important than an attention seeking high school student.

68565[/snapback]

Preservation of Constitutional freedoms and the integrity of education are also more important than the motives of any of us. You're not saying anything about what was right or wrong. You're just calling a kid names.

As for stopping terror cells, I don't trust the Bush administration. The danger in what they're doing is that we will all lose our freedom, and I don't mean just freedom of religion. That's also more important than any of our personal motives.

Would it possible for one of you right-wingers to discuss the issues, once? Just once?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Amazing, this ***** ** * kid gets away with an illegal act and gains National attention, and his father (what else a lawyer) defends his sons illegal act. WHAT A COUNTRY, WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Paul?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

68611[/snapback]

What did he do that was illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith,Marshall,Mo
I'd say trying to stop terror cells from operating freely in this country is slightly more important than an attention seeking high school student.

68565[/snapback]

Gimme a break! It's not more important to me. I don't want teachers preaching in public school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo
Amazing, this ***** ** * kid gets away with an illegal act and gains National attention, and his father (what else a lawyer) defends his sons illegal act. WHAT A COUNTRY, WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, Paul?

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

68611[/snapback]

You are clearly ignorant of the fact that even freedom of speech has limits under the law.

Share this post


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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...