Jump to content

Hypocrisy


Guest 2smart4u
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

In a recent post Paul professes his version of what the world should be like; people and animals don't eat one another, cats play with mice, man and beast all live together in harmony. And according to Paul, because the world does not conform to Paul's vision, that's proof that God doesn't exist.

So I have to wonder why Paul's professed love-fest with the world doesn't extend to a high school teacher. Apparently Paul "encouraged" his son to surreptitiously tape-record a teacher ostensibly to cause the teacher harm or even cause the teacher to lose his teaching position.

How then does Paul abet his son's actions which could easily be described as malicious and mean-spirited and yet profess a desire for love and harmony among all creatures.

And he's so proud of what his son has done, he's flaunting his son's invitations to speak to a group of atheists and another group of left-wing nut jobs.

Paul is nothing but a hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent post Paul professes his version of what the world should be like; people and animals don't eat one another, cats play with mice, man and beast all live together in harmony. And according to Paul, because the world does not conform to Paul's vision, that's proof that God doesn't exist.

  So I have to wonder why Paul's professed love-fest with the world doesn't extend to a high school teacher. Apparently Paul "encouraged" his son to surreptitiously tape-record a teacher ostensibly to cause the teacher harm or even cause the teacher to lose his teaching position.

  How then does Paul abet his son's actions which could easily be described as malicious and mean-spirited and yet profess a desire for love and harmony among all creatures.

    And he's so proud of what his son has done, he's flaunting his son's invitations to speak to a group of atheists and another group of left-wing nut jobs.

    Paul is nothing but a hypocrite.

Not that one can ever get through to someone who is determined not to listen, and it's quite obvious that 2dim4words lacks the will and/or the capacity to think logically. All the same, let’s start this reply with a listing of fallacies and distractions in 2dim4words’ post.

1. Evidence for or against the existence of a god or any particular god, such as the biblical god, has nothing to do with me personally.

2. I do love David Paszkiewicz and wish him all the best. I keep hoping he will respond to my invitation to discuss this personally.

3. The teacher was not recorded to cause harm to the teacher, but as a means for Matthew to protect himself and create a record, which could be used if necessary. The key phrase here is "if necessary." This would happen only if Mr. Paszkiewicz denied the truth, which he did. Had he been truthful, none of this would have come out. There’s nothing malicious or mean-spirited about it. Matthew was just creating an undeniable record of the facts to protect himself and put himself in a position to press this issue if necessary. He was hoping it would not be necessary, but because of Mr. Paszkiewicz’s abysmal response, it was.

4. Atheists are not all left-wingers or nut-jobs. In my experience, they tend to be people who think for themselves. On the whole, they don't follow the crowd and they are probably of higher than average intelligence. Some of them are as dogmatic as the religious fundamentalists, but that’s no reason not to speak to them. Matthew would speak to Mr. Paszkiewicz’s church members, too, if he was invited.

As to the main argument 2dim thinks he’s making:

1. God supposedly had a perfect universe and unlimited power. Therefore, conceptually "he" was in a very different position than I am. You can't take the ideal world that would have been possible for such a god and demand that any human being live according to what would be done in that ideal world. We must live in this world, and for that reason our actions cannot simply be transported from the imaginary ideal world of this particular theology.

2. Mr. Paszkiewicz said in open class that he wanted the gospel disseminated to the world. Matthew helped him do that, and in his own words. How was he harmed? He got exactly what he said he wanted, which was dissemination of his version of Jesus' teachings all over the world. Why isn't he thanking Matthew for helping him do it? I know you don't want to deal with that, but what's the answer? Hmmm?

3. Mr. Paszkiewicz was offered many opportunities to avoid having this made public. He declined them all. Frankly, if I were on the school board right now I would have to wonder whether he has a sufficient commitment to the goals and purposes of a public school to continue teaching here. He should be asking himself the same question. What I see from this teacher is arrogance, immaturity, hypocrisy, abysmal ignorance in certain areas of the school’s curriculum and a very troubling willingness to villainize and emotionally abuse students who don’t agree with him. If you wish to continue making this argument, you can, but frankly Mr. Paszkiewicz has been digging his own grave professionally, whether he realizes it or not, and you're helping him do it. It’s especially ironic that in the October 10th meeting, he said that education takes us out of our comfort zone. It certainly does, but apparently he does not see how that applies to him.

4. If Mr. Paszkiewicz had lost his teaching job because of what he said or did, that is hardly Matthew’s fault. Loving people doesn’t mean that we have to allow them to violate the rules, the law or the US Constitution. Love is also expressed by standing up for the rules and laws that bind us together and under which we live. You do favor prisons and even capital punishment, don't you? You favor appropriate punishments for wrong actions, don't you? So what's the problem?

I’m extremely proud of Matthew. At the age of seventeen, he has won worldwide respect and admiration. He didn’t go looking for it, he just acted in accordance with his commitments and this is the result. No doubt it irks those who don’t agree with him no end, and it’s funny watching them struggle to make a case against him.

So keep right on trying, oh 2dim one. At least you're thinking about what a world would look like if an omnipotent and loving god had created it. Keep struggling with that. And good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent post Paul professes his version of what the world should be like; people and animals don't eat one another, cats play with mice, man and beast all live together in harmony. And according to Paul, because the world does not conform to Paul's vision, that's proof that God doesn't exist.

  So I have to wonder why Paul's professed love-fest with the world doesn't extend to a high school teacher. Apparently Paul "encouraged" his son to surreptitiously tape-record a teacher ostensibly to cause the teacher harm or even cause the teacher to lose his teaching position.

  How then does Paul abet his son's actions which could easily be described as malicious and mean-spirited and yet profess a desire for love and harmony among all creatures.

    And he's so proud of what his son has done, he's flaunting his son's invitations to speak to a group of atheists and another group of left-wing nut jobs.

    Paul is nothing but a hypocrite.

YOU are completely off base. The teacher caused his own harm by his totally inappropriate preaching in a publicly funded school, he should have been dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent post Paul professes his version of what the world should be like; people and animals don't eat one another, cats play with mice, man and beast all live together in harmony. And according to Paul, because the world does not conform to Paul's vision, that's proof that God doesn't exist.

God as Christians themselves have defined him. You guys define him as being all-powerful, and all-loving/benevolent. Therefore the existence of a whole lot of things clash strongly with it. Of course, the contradiction wouldn't be there if you believe in a malicious or mischievious god. But you don't. Don't blame us--you came up with this god AND you got to define him. If you ended up defining one that makes no sense, that's your problem, not ours.

So I have to wonder why Paul's professed love-fest with the world doesn't extend to a high school teacher. Apparently Paul "encouraged" his son to surreptitiously tape-record a teacher ostensibly to cause the teacher harm or even cause the teacher to lose his teaching position.

And explain how that is when in fact Paul didn't take the very justifiable step to seek any sort of direct disciplinary action toward the teacher. I have no doubt he could have ended that teacher's career easily if he had tried, given how Mr. P. just kept piling on the crap with lack of apology, showing extreme incompetence in his own subject (a reason for dismissal totally separate from the Constitutional issue), etc. Yet he didn't even try.

If Paszkiewicz is 'harmed' by the broadcast of his own words WHILE ON THE JOB, that's his own fault. Deal with it.

How then does Paul abet his son's actions which could easily be described as malicious and mean-spirited

Declaring who will and won't suffer for eternity is more malicious and mean-spirited than anything Matthew did by far. All Matthew did was expose wrongdoing. You're just whining because you agreed with the teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sherlock
God as Christians themselves have defined him. You guys define him as being all-powerful, and all-loving/benevolent. Therefore the existence of a whole lot of things clash strongly with it. Of course, the contradiction wouldn't be there if you believe in a malicious or mischievious god. But you don't. Don't blame us--you came up with this god AND you got to define him. If you ended up defining one that makes no sense, that's your problem, not ours.

And explain how that is when in fact Paul didn't take the very justifiable step to seek any sort of direct disciplinary action toward the teacher. I have no doubt he could have ended that teacher's career easily if he had tried, given how Mr. P. just kept piling on the crap with lack of apology, showing extreme incompetence in his own subject (a reason for dismissal totally separate from the Constitutional issue), etc. Yet he didn't even try.

If Paszkiewicz is 'harmed' by the broadcast of his own words WHILE ON THE JOB, that's his own fault. Deal with it.

Declaring who will and won't suffer for eternity is more malicious and mean-spirited than anything Matthew did by far. All Matthew did was expose wrongdoing. You're just whining because you agreed with the teacher.

I've come to the conclusion that "Strife" is in fact Paul's son Matthew. That's the only possible explanation for his obsessive cozying up to Paul. And Paul has trained him well, he parrots everything Paul says on cue and agrees with everything Paul says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
In a recent post Paul professes his version of what the world should be like; people and animals don't eat one another, cats play with mice, man and beast all live together in harmony. And according to Paul, because the world does not conform to Paul's vision, that's proof that God doesn't exist.

  So I have to wonder why Paul's professed love-fest with the world doesn't extend to a high school teacher. Apparently Paul "encouraged" his son to surreptitiously tape-record a teacher ostensibly to cause the teacher harm or even cause the teacher to lose his teaching position.

  How then does Paul abet his son's actions which could easily be described as malicious and mean-spirited and yet profess a desire for love and harmony among all creatures.

    And he's so proud of what his son has done, he's flaunting his son's invitations to speak to a group of atheists and another group of left-wing nut jobs.

    Paul is nothing but a hypocrite.

I see all the LoonyLeft have jumped to Paul's defense but I have to say you're absolutely right, with one correction. Paul is not just a hypocrite, he's an obnoxious hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God as Christians themselves have defined him. You guys define him as being all-powerful, and all-loving/benevolent. Therefore the existence of a whole lot of things clash strongly with it. Of course, the contradiction wouldn't be there if you believe in a malicious or mischievious god. But you don't. Don't blame us--you came up with this god AND you got to define him. If you ended up defining one that makes no sense, that's your problem, not ours.

And explain how that is when in fact Paul didn't take the very justifiable step to seek any sort of direct disciplinary action toward the teacher. I have no doubt he could have ended that teacher's career easily if he had tried, given how Mr. P. just kept piling on the crap with lack of apology, showing extreme incompetence in his own subject (a reason for dismissal totally separate from the Constitutional issue), etc. Yet he didn't even try.

If Paszkiewicz is 'harmed' by the broadcast of his own words WHILE ON THE JOB, that's his own fault. Deal with it.

Declaring who will and won't suffer for eternity is more malicious and mean-spirited than anything Matthew did by far. All Matthew did was expose wrongdoing. You're just whining because you agreed with the teacher.

Strife767, what furry animal do you feel you relate to the most?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come to the conclusion that "Strife" is in fact Paul's son Matthew.

Matthew is already registered here, and has admitted in person he spends very little time on this website.

That's the only possible explanation for his obsessive cozying up to Paul.

1. I'm not the only person (not even if you only counted Kearny :rolleyes:) who agrees with him. I'm just the one with the biggest online presence. :P

2. Apparently not the only possible explanation, because I'm not him. You sir, have failed. :lol:

And Paul has trained him well, he parrots everything Paul says on cue and agrees with everything Paul says.

Because of course, only immediate family will agree on things. :lol: What an absurd statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that one can ever get through to someone who is determined not to listen, and it's quite obvious that 2dim4words lacks the will and/or the capacity to think logically. All the same, let’s start this reply with a listing of fallacies and distractions in 2dim4words’ post.

1. Evidence for or against the existence of a god or any particular god, such as the biblical god, has nothing to do with me personally.

2. I do love David Paszkiewicz and wish him all the best. I keep hoping he will respond to my invitation to discuss this personally.

3. The teacher was not recorded to cause harm to the teacher, but as a means for Matthew to protect himself and create a record, which could be used if necessary. The key phrase here is "if necessary." This would happen only if Mr. Paszkiewicz denied the truth, which he did. Had he been truthful, none of this would have come out. There’s nothing malicious or mean-spirited about it. Matthew was just creating an undeniable record of the facts to protect himself and put himself in a position to press this issue if necessary. He was hoping it would not be necessary, but because of Mr. Paszkiewicz’s abysmal response, it was.

4. Atheists are not all left-wingers or nut-jobs. In my experience, they tend to be people who think for themselves. On the whole, they don't follow the crowd and they are probably of higher than average intelligence. Some of them are as dogmatic as the religious fundamentalists, but that’s no reason not to speak to them. Matthew would speak to Mr. Paszkiewicz’s church members, too, if he was invited.

As to the main argument 2dim thinks he’s making:

1. God supposedly had a perfect universe and unlimited power. Therefore, conceptually "he" was in a very different position than I am. You can't take the ideal world that would have been possible for such a god and demand that any human being live according to what would be done in that ideal world. We must live in this world, and for that reason our actions cannot simply be transported from the imaginary ideal world of this particular theology.

2. Mr. Paszkiewicz said in open class that he wanted the gospel disseminated to the world. Matthew helped him do that, and in his own words. How was he harmed? He got exactly what he said he wanted, which was dissemination of his version of Jesus' teachings all over the world. Why isn't he thanking Matthew for helping him do it? I know you don't want to deal with that, but what's the answer? Hmmm?

3. Mr. Paszkiewicz was offered many opportunities to avoid having this made public. He declined them all. Frankly, if I were on the school board right now I would have to wonder whether he has a sufficient commitment to the goals and purposes of a public school to continue teaching here. He should be asking himself the same question. What I see from this teacher is arrogance, immaturity, hypocrisy, abysmal ignorance in certain areas of the school’s curriculum and a very troubling willingness to villainize and emotionally abuse students who don’t agree with him. If you wish to continue making this argument, you can, but frankly Mr. Paszkiewicz has been digging his own grave professionally, whether he realizes it or not, and you're helping him do it. It’s especially ironic that in the October 10th meeting, he said that education takes us out of our comfort zone. It certainly does, but apparently he does not see how that applies to him.

4. If Mr. Paszkiewicz had lost his teaching job because of what he said or did, that is hardly Matthew’s fault. Loving people doesn’t mean that we have to allow them to violate the rules, the law or the US Constitution. Love is also expressed by standing up for the rules and laws that bind us together and under which we live. You do favor prisons and even capital punishment, don't you? You favor appropriate punishments for wrong actions, don't you? So what's the problem?

I’m extremely proud of Matthew. At the age of seventeen, he has won worldwide respect and admiration. He didn’t go looking for it, he just acted in accordance with his commitments and this is the result. No doubt it irks those who don’t agree with him no end, and it’s funny watching them struggle to make a case against him.

So keep right on trying, oh 2dim one. At least you're thinking about what a world would look like if an omnipotent and loving god had created it. Keep struggling with that. And good luck.

Wow. Thinking that paul has actually jumped off the deep end with this one. I guess to love someone is to make a public display of him. He all but hung him out to dry and now he says he "loves him"? Who the "f” is he kidding? He said junior was recording to protect himself? From what is he protecting himself from? The teacher even said he was a good student and he more than anyone participated in the class discussion and if anything just continued to provoke it more and more? I am not struggling with it, just ashamed of this family for trying to make a personal gain out of it. He should be proud of Matthew. His lies are almost as good as his fathers. pauls stuggles with religion continue to haunt him through all his posts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come to the conclusion that "Strife" is in fact Paul's son Matthew.  That's the only possible explanation for his obsessive cozying up to Paul. And Paul has trained him well, he parrots everything Paul says on cue and agrees with everything Paul says.

Yet again people who cannot explain this case except by making things up have made up something that is not true. Strife is not Matthew.

Furthermore, the most reasonable explanation for Strife's posts is that he understands Constitutional law as it pertains to these issues, and the philosophy behind freedom under our Constitutional system. The law is a body of knowledge, which is why it is possible for bar exams to exist. Naturally, anyone who understands the law is going to give roughly the same answers.

There are explanations for all these things. The right wing just refuses to hear or accept them. The most reasonable explanation for that, and the truth, is that the facts do not support their position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see all the LoonyLeft have jumped to Paul's defense but I have to say you're absolutely right, with one correction.  Paul is not just a hypocrite, he's an obnoxious hypocrite.

Not only do you clearly not understand the meaning of 'patriot', you have NO understanding of religious vx. secular matters and how they should be handled in PUBLICLY funded schools. WANKER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CrypticLife

Paul, your son has my respect, particularly after seeing the rabid attacks of your opponents in this.

If I were to take you to task for anything, it would be for allowing your son to be in this position, going to this school district. I'll assume there is a good reason for it. My sons will never, ever step foot inside a Kearny classroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, your son has my respect, particularly after seeing the rabid attacks of your opponents in this. 

If I were to take you to task for anything, it would be for allowing your son to be in this position, going to this school district.  I'll assume there is a good reason for it.  My sons will never, ever step foot inside a Kearny classroom.

I appreciate that. I've offered and suggested many times to Matthew that we get him out of here for senior year. He won't have it. He believes he has contributed something valuable and may yet contribute more. I could pull rank, I suppose, but when a young man demonstrates this level of commitment and competence, pulling him out against his will would be the wrong thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Thinking that paul has actually jumped off the deep end with this one. I guess to love someone is to make a public display of him. He all but hung him out to dry and now he says he "loves him"?  Who the "f” is he kidding? He said junior was recording to protect himself? From what is he protecting himself from? The teacher even said he was a good student and he more than anyone participated in the class discussion and if anything just continued to provoke it more and more?  I am not struggling with it, just ashamed of this family for trying to make a personal gain out of it.  He should be proud of Matthew. His lies are almost as good as his fathers.  pauls stuggles with religion continue to haunt him through all his posts here.

And yet again you judge what you know not. You don't know what I feel, and yet you presume to judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said junior was recording to protect himself? From what is he protecting himself from?

From his claims being dismissed in a "he said she said" situation with a teacher, in which the student is rarely believed over the teacher. And since Paskiewicz has proven clear as day he's willing to lie to cover his ass, it is just as clear that Matthew made the right move in gathering the audio evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, your son has my respect, particularly after seeing the rabid attacks of your opponents in this. 

If I were to take you to task for anything, it would be for allowing your son to be in this position, going to this school district.  I'll assume there is a good reason for it.  My sons will never, ever step foot inside a Kearny classroom.

Since you live in East Orange, your sons can't go to KHS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Sherlock
Yet again people who cannot explain this case except by making things up have made up something that is not true. Strife is not Matthew.

Furthermore, the most reasonable explanation for Strife's posts is that he understands Constitutional law as it pertains to these issues, and the philosophy behind freedom under our Constitutional system. The law is a body of knowledge, which is why it is possible for bar exams to exist. Naturally, anyone who understands the law is going to give roughly the same answers.

There are explanations for all these things. The right wing just refuses to hear or accept them. The most reasonable explanation for that, and the truth, is that the facts do not support their position.

What a crock. Matthew has been posting as Strife, Im sure of it. And I'm sure daddy has been helping Matt/Strife with some of his postings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Melanie
In a recent post Paul professes his version of what the world should be like; people and animals don't eat one another, cats play with mice, man and beast all live together in harmony. And according to Paul, because the world does not conform to Paul's vision, that's proof that God doesn't exist.

  So I have to wonder why Paul's professed love-fest with the world doesn't extend to a high school teacher. Apparently Paul "encouraged" his son to surreptitiously tape-record a teacher ostensibly to cause the teacher harm or even cause the teacher to lose his teaching position.

  How then does Paul abet his son's actions which could easily be described as malicious and mean-spirited and yet profess a desire for love and harmony among all creatures.

    And he's so proud of what his son has done, he's flaunting his son's invitations to speak to a group of atheists and another group of left-wing nut jobs.

    Paul is nothing but a hypocrite.

Paul wasn't expressing how the world "should" be. He was just observing how it would be different than the world we actually live in if an omnipotent and benevolent god had created it. It's like going to a great restaurant and being served meat that was completely burned, along with vegetables that were cooked into mush and a low-quality canned sauce that didn't even go with the meal. You know the chef didn't prepare that meal.

People like 2dim4words are among the first to proclaim "tough love," but when tough love is expressed to someone they'd like to protect, suddenly it's not love any more. I can understand how Paul can love David Paszkiewicz. 2dim could understand it too if he hadn't already made up his mind what Paul thinks and feels. If this had been an atheist teacher, and 2dim or his child had recorded the class, 2dim would have run straight to the press with it and demanded immediately that the teacher be fired. And the people defending Paszkiewicz would be picketing the school demanding the same thing. All those signs that showed up at the BoE meetings expressing love and admiration for Paszkiewicz would have been demanding his termination if he had been an atheist. Paul isn't the hypocrite here. 2dim and his right-wing friends are.

People like 2dim are also among the first to call for stern punishments for criminal offenders and the first to support war. This is an implicit recognition that while we may try to achieve peace, love and harmony, sometimes we have to bend to the realities of the world and oppose or punish other people, our brothers and sisters. Paul is not the hypocrite. 2dim4words and the other right-wingers who have no trouble supporting long criminal sentences and wars at the drop of a hat are the hypocrites because they don't even try to express love when the going gets tough. They just paint others as the enemy and cast them prematurely into their own little version of hell. I don't like to go so far as others have and say that people disgust me, but I understand why people are saying these things to 2dim and the other hard-right wingers posting on this list. Theirs truly is a sick and twisted vision of the world and the people in it. If you look at it carefully, you see that it's not about the divine, it's all about them and what they have chosen to believe.

2dim, I know you're probably not paying any attention. You're probably thinking right now what clever turn of phrase (so you think) you can use to respond to this. Just the same, I'll tell you plainly that you don't understand what you're trying to criticize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Melanie
Wow. Thinking that paul has actually jumped off the deep end with this one. I guess to love someone is to make a public display of him. He all but hung him out to dry and now he says he "loves him"?  Who the "f” is he kidding? He said junior was recording to protect himself? From what is he protecting himself from? The teacher even said he was a good student and he more than anyone participated in the class discussion and if anything just continued to provoke it more and more?  I am not struggling with it, just ashamed of this family for trying to make a personal gain out of it.  He should be proud of Matthew. His lies are almost as good as his fathers.  pauls stuggles with religion continue to haunt him through all his posts here.

How do you hang someone out to dry with his own words? Paszkiewicz's defenders keep making the same ridiculous point, and every time they make it, all they prove is how biased they are, and how incapable they are of having any rational discussion of this matter.

Matthew was protecting himself in case the teacher lied about what he had said in the classroom, which is exactly what the teacher did. It's not easy accusing a teacher of improper behavior, so I can understand Matthew's concern. The teacher was dead sure he could get away with it, and he would have - but he didn't count on Matthew having it recorded. It makes perfect sense, except to someone who is absolutely determined not to believe it.

Matthew was asking the same questions he would have asked without a recorder in his pocket. He doesn't agree with what the teacher was saying and he was challenging him. Obviously the teacher wasn't up to and wasn't ready for the challenge. The student has the right to do that. The teacher does not.

What lies has Matthew told? I'm not aware of any.

What lies has Paul told? I'm not aware of any.

How do you know whether, how or to what extent Paul is struggling with religion? This is just your own spin on things, and it comes from nothing but your biases. Paul is a thoughtful man who thinks about these issues. Anyone who claims not to struggle with these issues is either lying, deluding himself or going out of his way not to think about them. Fundamentalists tend to be very impressed with how certain they are about things they know nothing about. Most of us look at them doing this and see something else. It's a shame these fundies can't see themselves as they really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a crock.  Matthew has been posting as Strife, Im sure of it.  And I'm sure daddy has been helping Matt/Strife with some of his postings.

False on both counts. All you know is what you want to believe, and then you equate that with the truth. You're trained to think that way, to think that believing it makes it so (that the fundamentalist conception of faith), but you just bore false witness --- again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you hang someone out to dry with his own words? Paszkiewicz's defenders keep making the same ridiculous point, and every time they make it, all they prove is how biased they are, and how incapable they are of having any rational discussion of this matter.

You're answering their point, at least in present context, with fallacies of ridicule and ad hominem.

Matthew was protecting himself in case the teacher lied about what he had said in the classroom, which is exactly what the teacher did. It's not easy accusing a teacher of improper behavior, so I can understand Matthew's concern. The teacher was dead sure he could get away with it, and he would have - but he didn't count on Matthew having it recorded. It makes perfect sense, except to someone who is absolutely determined not to believe it.

A fair reading of the meeting transcript is sure to show that Paszkiewicz did a better job than Matthew of providing context for the quotations Matthew suggested were wrong.

Matthew was asking the same questions he would have asked without a recorder in his pocket. He doesn't agree with what the teacher was saying and he was challenging him. Obviously the teacher wasn't up to and wasn't ready for the challenge. The student has the right to do that. The teacher does not.

Matthew's actions completely undermine Matthew's contention that he was afraid for the safety of his fellow students. If Matthew had really been concerned about the safety of students confronted with Paszkiewicz's (supposedly) outrageous views, then Matthew would not have risked increasing students' exposure to those types of statements by enc[ouraging Paszkiewicz to make more of those statements]

What lies has Matthew told? I'm not aware of any.

How about this one?

"... one problem that I’m going to have now is, because that was my main problem. That was the thing that you said that really upset me. Now you say you didn’t say it, and I don’t know how I could prove that."

--Matthew LaClair (Matthew, during his meeting with Woods, Somma, and Paszkiewicz, apparently has no idea how he could possibly prove that Paszkiewicz could say the things Matthew says he said).

What lies has Paul told? I'm not aware of any.

Would lies told at KOTW count?

Several times, Paul has attributed arguments to me that he should know did not represent my actual argument. Either he was stating as truth what he did not know (which was deceitful), or be has telling a blatant lie. And he has refused to recant when confronted, in addition (he leaves his misstatements without correction or apology).

How do you know whether, how or to what extent Paul is struggling with religion? This is just your own spin on things, and it comes from nothing but your biases.

Paul has posted to these boards about confronting and opposing the "dangerous" ideas of religion, such as the doctrine of hell. He implicitly wants to advance his own religion against others, and explicitly wants his own religion as the default religion of the United States of America, even though the foundation he would supply for morality is at odds with that of the framers.

Paul is a thoughtful man who thinks about these issues.

If he's beens spending an appreciable amount of time thinking about these issues then he isn't much of a thinker. His attempts at philosophical justification of his positions are laughable, and his university would be humiliated to see one of their graduates engaging so routinely in fallacious argumentation.

Anyone who claims not to struggle with these issues is either lying, deluding himself or going out of his way not to think about them.

So Melanie apparently agrees that Paul struggles with religion.

Fundamentalists tend to be very impressed with how certain they are about things they know nothing about.

For example?

Or is that something Melanie knows nothing about?

Most of us look at them doing this and see something else. It's a shame these fundies can't see themselves as they really are.

She sounds quite certain of herself, doesn't she?

Edited by Bryan
Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...