Did this teacher cross the line?

[Severian]

I would recommend that religious folk that think "Christian Values" are depicting justice and goodness to read the bible *AGAIN* before they suggest that as religious folk, their "values" are better than atheist/deist morality.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Of course Christians think that their values are 'better' otherwise they wouldn't have them. And who are you to define what is 'better' anyway?

 

This is once again displaying the usual arrogance of the atheistic/secular viewpoint that there is some 'logical sefl-evident derivation' behind their set of values and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. Christians (and Muslims, Hindus etc) at least have the decency to be honest and say that their value system is not derived but given.

 

Quite frankly, I am quite happy not to share any 'human values' with someone who was a member of the Israeli military. Isn't one of your 'human values' to 'beat the crap out of' anyone who disagrees with you?

[iNow]

When I first read your original post about "of course they're Christian values," I sincerely thought your were being tongue in cheek. Then, I started reading everyone's response to you and I was going to come to your aid. Then... I read this:

 

Any value which Christians hold is a Christian value. Any value which libertarians hold is a libertarian value.

 

... and this doesn't fly.

 

Let's replace the word "values" with any other word to see why.

 

"Any money which Christians hold is Christain money."

Nope.

"Any ideology which Christians hold is Christian ideology."

Nope.

"Any desire which Christians hold is Christian desire."

Nope.

"Any misunderstanding which Christians hold is Christian misunderstanding."

Nope.

 

 

Same with values. While the concepts described as "Christian values" may be a subset of the set "values," the values themselves are the set. If one who is Christian has values that they associate with their Christianity, that does not by default make them Christian values... It makes them values held by A christian.

 

 

 

Quite frankly, I am quite happy not to share any 'human values' with someone who was a member of the Israeli military. Isn't one of your 'human values' to 'beat the crap out of' anyone who disagrees with you?

Now who's being ridiculous?

 

 

You apparently don't even know it's compulsory to be in the military in Israel.

[mooeypoo]

Don't be ridiculous. Of course Christians think that their values are 'better' otherwise they wouldn't have them. And who are you to define what is 'better' anyway?

Who are "they"?

 

The difference is that I *don't* claim their values are lesser than mine, I just have enough decency to consider my own values subjectively and not "in comparison".

 

However, I must say, that though "Christian Values" are not "lesser" than mine, the *biblical values* I do consider lesser, and I would assume any caring, moral individual (moral of the western countries, since morality - at least in my view - is subjective and cultural-based), would claim.

 

Most moral people would say that half of Levitical laws are shameful, and I would state - quite proudly, even - that in my own eyes, my OWN moral values are much BETTER than the levitical biblical 'morals', yes. Who am I to say that? A moral individual. You can disagree, I won't kill you for it. I do think that the debate, though, is the important part.

 

 

 

This is once again displaying the usual arrogance of the atheistic/secular viewpoint that there is some 'logical sefl-evident derivation' behind their set of values and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. Christians (and Muslims, Hindus etc) at least have the decency to be honest and say that their value system is not derived but given.

Excuse me, but Atheists are not the ones going around saying "WE ARE MORAL YOU ARE NOT", it's the Christians and other Religious folk who do that. "You cannot be a moral individual without religion" is the idiocy I receive *every damn time*.

 

We all probably claim that our individual views are better than others otherwise we wouldn't HAVE them, but I don't see a lot of Atheists who claim there shouldn't be Christians as citizens (Bush said that about Atheists, supported by Evangelical Christians) or pushing to make individual moral *subjective* values as part of law that oppresses *other people's values*. (values that don't hurt anyone else, mind you, like gay marriage, abortion and stem-cell research).

 

So get off your high horse, my friend. My comments weren't directed personally-to-you as an individual, they were directed at the general sense of moral superiority that the Christians *act* on. Not just claim.

 

 

 

Quite frankly, I am quite happy not to share any 'human values' with someone who was a member of the Israeli military. Isn't one of your 'human values' to 'beat the crap out of' anyone who disagrees with you?

 

 

Was that supposed to be a low-blow, or just an ad-hominem claim? Do you know what I did there? Do you know who I support and who I don't? Do you even know what my VIEWS are regarding the situation you so blatantly flatten to fit your own bias?

 

I could also play stupid and say that you're a crazed killer who murders innocent Iraqis for the sake of oil. Oh.. wait..do you disagree with Bush? I don't care, you're an American, so you must be part of the massacre, you must be completely in agreement, and therefore oyu are a generalized version of your President.

 

I could do that, but I'm smarter than that. The fact I love my country doesn't mean I *SUPPORT ITS ACTIONS*. The fact I was BORN and RAISED in Israel does not mean I support its actions either, or that I hate arabs, or that I want the palestinians to be kicked out. If you would have had the slightest decency to *ask me* before you make assumptions, perhaps I could *tell you* what my VALUES are, and how I made them fit my *real* life experiences, and not just what you would like to THINK my life experiences are.

 

Grow up.

 

 

 

 

~moo

 

P.S:

 

I'm not sure how much you "follow" my discussions on the board, but I usually am one of the more patient debaters, even with the most shallow idiots. If it sounds like I took personal offense to what you wrote, it's because it's damn true. I do take offense to blatant generalizations and cheap shots.

 

Now you may understand why I don't even START political arguments anymore - trying to speak my opinion (which is much less shallow than "BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THEM", thankyou, I *don't* follow the bible, or the Quran) - just to encounter people go on with logical fallacies about my ORIGIN, or assumptions about a situation they have no friggin clue about.

 

When people generalize and over-simplify the situation in Israel (Arabs hate Jews. Jews hate Arabs. Israel powerful. Palestine Weak. Israel murderer. ooga Booga.) you are not considering *all the facts*, only SOME of the facts, and you can't begin to make a *RATIONAL VALID* discussion. Instead, it is degraded to generalized insults.

 

So yes, I took personal offense.

 

I would *think* that my behavior on the forums would show you who I am and what my values are, and that you would be a bit more respectful than to fall into a comic-book 'evil vs. good' depiction of a country you know SHIT about.

[Severian]

Who are "they"?

 

Duh! Christians, obviously.

 

The difference is that I *don't* claim their values are lesser than mine, I just have enough decency to consider my own values subjectively and not "in comparison".

 

You just did, two posts ago, and have the arrogance to do so in the same post you claim you don't:

 

However, I must say, that though "Christian Values" are not "lesser" than mine, the *biblical values* I do consider lesser, and I would assume any caring, moral individual (moral of the western countries, since morality - at least in my view - is subjective and cultural-based), would claim.

 

"biblical values" are Christian, so you are saying you consider Christian values to be lesser (just not all of them).

 

Most moral people would say that half of Levitical laws are shameful, and I would state - quite proudly, even - that in my own eyes, my OWN moral values are much BETTER than the levitical biblical 'morals', yes.

 

There you go again.

 

Excuse me, but Atheists are not the ones going around saying "WE ARE MORAL YOU ARE NOT",

 

erm... yes you are - you just did (see above)

 

We all probably claim that our individual views are better than others otherwise we wouldn't HAVE them, but I don't see a lot of Atheists who claim there shouldn't be Christians as citizens

 

I don't see a lot of Christians who claim there shouldn't be atheists as citizens either.

 

So get off your high horse, my friend. My comments weren't directed personally-to-you as an individual, they were directed at the general sense of moral superiority that the Christians *act* on. Not just claim.

 

So what makes you think my comments were directed at you personally. I don't even know you. They were directed at the crap you posted. But gee, these atheist women are touchy!

 

Was that supposed to be a low-blow, or just an ad-hominem claim?

 

Just a statement of fact and a parallel to your attack on 'Christian values'. While I admit that a lot of so-called Christians have done some very evil things in the past, your lot seem to be making an art out of it.

 

Do you know what I did there? Do you know who I support and who I don't? Do you even know what my VIEWS are regarding the situation you so blatantly flatten to fit your own bias?

 

You were in their military. That seems clear enough.

Oh.. wait..do you disagree with Bush? I don't care, you're an American, so you must be part of the massacre, you must be completely in agreement, and therefore oyu are a generalized version of your President.

 

It seems you know a lot less about me than I know about you. I am not American.

 

So yes, I took personal offense.

 

Well, that's good, because offense was intended. It is about time social illiterates like you learned that if you give offense with cheap attacks on people's belief systems, you can expect some flack back.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, I didn't attack "Christians", I criticized what the Bible has as moral values (Specifically *LEVITICAL LAWS*). The fact you took it personally may mean you hold these values (though I, unlike you, am not jumping to conclusions), in which case, I criticize your values. I see no personal offense in that. I - and others - do that all the time when I consider my *own* moral value system.

 

I am sick and tired of people telling me that criticizing "religious values" is taboo. Why the heck should it be? Politicians make a point in inserting some of these into our laws, and just as we criticize any OTHER moral system (or belief system!) these are open for criticism. You were the one to take it personally in the first place and start a bash war, which I am doing my best to avoid from this point onward.

 

The reason I said I criticize *the biblical laws* and not "The Christian Values" is because the "Christian Values" is an *undefined* system. WHICH Christian Values? The catholic one? The protestant one? The evangelical one? They seem to have contradictory values at specific points, so I really don't see a point to *generalize*.

 

The biblical text, however, is very specific, and those who follow it literally are following a set of rules that I view as extremely immoral, to say the least. Does that hurt you? Well.. weird that it does, to be honest, because beyond the "Though shall not commit murder" in the bible, there are also laws that demand you stone your own child if he is insolent, laws that specifically say women are to be ignored in court and in social matters (including claims of rape), it has laws that state that if a woman is pregnant due to rape, she is to be GIVEN to the rapist, and many other archaic laws that I find utterly immoral.

 

Just like I can say that I find child beating immoral, even though many cultures hold it in their cultural/religious law. I don't see any problem with stating my opinion on what IS and ISNT moral.

 

 

As for your cheap attacks about my origin, that is called Ad Hominem, and whether or not you are American, my example was given to make a point. Your insistence in ignoring that point just proves it further; that you have no problems generalizing situations that are more complicated than what the media shows you, just for the sake of having a comfortable POINT to make.

 

Cheers, have fun with that, I'll go back to filing my horns down. As an Israeli murderer atheist bitch, I take good care in preserving my misleading appearance, specifically before a meeting with the Elders of Zion. Preparation for world domination is tiring, even for us evil folk murderous atheist zionist israeli jews.

Damn.. I think I forgot the palestinian kid in the frying pan again, the oil is bubbling.

 

~moo

[Reaper]

So...uh, yeah, did the teacher cross the line?

 

===================================

 

And cut the fight both of you (Severian and mooeypoo). This is not a religious debate thread, and there were so many ad hominems and other generalizations on both sides. I'm not going to go over them simply because of the sheer number of them, but the overall message is grow up, and stop squabbling over petty little differences. I think we can all agree that there are some values that are very clearly good, while other values are not, and whether they are Christian or otherwise is irrelevant.

 

I mean seriously, for people who claim to be "rational" and "moral", I don't see any evidence of it.

[Pangloss]

Let's knock off the ad hom, folks. I thought that was a cheap shot, Severian, even if Mooey and iNow were a bit rough on what was really just a semantical disagreement. Relax, guys.

 

I think Severian's point is that saying that something is a "Christian value" doesn't mean that it belongs to Christians, but rather is an observation of what they believe. If it happens to coincide with another group's belief, and you want to also give it a higher-level definition, we can certainly do that as well.

 

Some Christians do try to claim ownership of values, I agree, and that's wrong, I agree. But it's just as ridiculous to distort the phrase "Christian value" to always indicate ownership. The phrase has two potential meanings. English sucks that way sometimes. Get over it.

[iNow]

That's a pretty *nice* way of looking at what was actually said. It was more than semantics, it was a flat out statement, which then quickly degenerated into antisemitism.

 

 

 

So what? I was not arguing about the religious beliefs of the 'founding fathers' (what a crap and cliched description). I was arguing against the illogicality of the expression "Being founded by persecuted Christians, does not equate to founded on Christian values". And in that regard, the point I made (that the values of 'persecuted Christian' are by definition ' Christian values') is entirely valid

[Pangloss]

Again, that can be interpreted two ways, so it's still semantics, iNow.

 

And what Severian said to Mooeypoo was not anti-semitic, it was anti-Mooeypoo. I see no need for you to step in the mud and spread it around.

[bascule]

The separation of church and state was intended to protect freedom of religion by preventing persecution from the state.

 

The true intention of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment was to prevent the establishment of a national religion. This obviously benefits freedom of religion, as a national religion could leverage government support to abolish all others.

 

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, was adamantly opposed to any religious involvement in government. Take, for instance, the issue of Congressional chaplains. Madison had this to say:

 

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

 

The phrase "separation of church and state" was plucked from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, but entered the national discourse through the verdict of the US Supreme Court case Everson v. Ewing, which concluded:

 

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

[Pangloss]

That's true, but they would never have had any problem with, say, an elected official wearing a cross, or a child asking her teacher what Shakespeare meant by "My words go up, my thoughts remain below; Words without thoughts ne'er to Heaven go." They even supported government funds going to religious institutions, so long as the purpose of that funding was beneficial to the public (e.g. soup kitchens) and not an attempt to convert new followers.

 

Also the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to PROTECT the religious, so they could worship in peace. Not remove them from existence so society would not be plagued by the evils of organized religion.

[john5746]

Well, that's good, because offense was intended. It is about time social illiterates like you learned that if you give offense with cheap attacks on people's belief systems, you can expect some flack back.

 

Awwww, did you get your wittle feewwings hurt? Suck on a pacifier next time instead of making personal attacks and getting owned.

 

Of course it does, by definition. In order to found a country value judgments must be applied, and since they were applied by people who were Christians they were Christian values by definition. If the US had been founded by Hindus then it would have been founded on Hindu values.

 

In order to test a hypothesis, experiments were run, and since they were made by people who were scientists they were Scientific experiments by definition.

 

Christians make mistakes and errors in their judgements all the time, just like anyone else. There are many sects of Christianity that disagree with others on all kinds of things pertaining to RELIGION. In the secular fields of economics, science and politics they vary that much more. To make the claim that a country is founded on Christian principles, you need to list the principles themselves and what those people claimed, not use the people as evidence. The founding of America was pretty damn ugly and while I am happy to be living here, I don't condone all the genocide, slavery, witch burning and general destruction that was done in the past. I don't think many Christians would claim these were christian values, just things done by so-called christians.

 

Again, that can be interpreted two ways, so it's still semantics, iNow.

 

And what Severian said to Mooeypoo was not anti-semitic, it was anti-Mooeypoo. I see no need for you to step in the mud and spread it around.

 

By definition, any judgement by a Jew is a Jewish value - so when he attacks Israel(founded by Jews), he attacks the religion. His remarks were anti-semitic, which is a Christian value, since he made a value judgement(right/wrong) and decided to do it.

 

Of course, I know that he was just jerking her chain, by attacking the actions of her country. You have to appreciate the irony of someone from Britain doing that.

 

 

Wasn't that the original intention? The separation of church and state was intended to protect freedom of religion by preventing persecution from the state. After all, the puritans originally came because they were being religiously persecuted.

 

And why were they being persecuted religiously? Because of RELIGION. Yes the Puritans came and set up their own little place where they could persecute anyone who didn't believe like them. The Puritans were just one group. There were many who came, mostly looking to make a living. Capitalism is what founded America, IMO. Companies looking to make money.

 

 

I can't help but wonder if this guy would've had to face the music (if he does have to face it!) if not for the student recording his behavior. As a teacher this makes me nervous -- I don't like students recording my lectures but I do permit it when asked, and I've never really formed a complete opinion on the subject. What do you all think?

 

I would think lectures are public domain, but the teacher should be told at least.

[mooeypoo]

That's true, but they would never have had any problem with, say, an elected official wearing a cross, or a child asking her teacher what Shakespeare meant by "My words go up, my thoughts remain below; Words without thoughts ne'er to Heaven go." They even supported government funds going to religious institutions, so long as the purpose of that funding was beneficial to the public (e.g. soup kitchens) and not an attempt to convert new followers.

 

Also the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to PROTECT the religious, so they could worship in peace. Not remove them from existence so society would not be plagued by the evils of organized religion.

Would they really not have a problem, though, with someone that has another religious-symbol on his neck, like a pagan?

 

I'm seriously asking, I don't know. it *seems* to me that the answer is no; that they quite readily accepted the 'normal' Christian (perhaps Jewish) beliefs, but not all. And if that is the case, then I am not sure that saying it was supposed to "protect religions" (generalized) is the true analysis.

 

But again.. I don't know the answer. Would they have accepted these?

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

Awwww, did you get your wittle feewwings hurt? Suck on a pacifier next time instead of making personal attacks and getting owned.

 

Guys, I'm not gonna ask nicely again on the ad hom, I'm just gonna start mashing the delete button. Move on, please.

 

 

By definition, any judgement by a Jew is a Jewish value - so when he attacks Israel(founded by Jews), he attacks the religion. His remarks were anti-semitic, which is a Christian value, since he made a value judgement(right/wrong) and decided to do it.

 

Actually it was a critique of the Israeli military, not Jewish socio-cultural behavior. At least that's how I read it. I see your point (and iNow's) but I'm really not inclined to dwell on it. He made a bad choice and he got "pwned". Let's move on.

[bascule]

Also the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to PROTECT the religious, so they could worship in peace. Not remove them from existence so society would not be plagued by the evils of organized religion.

 

I think you missed the point of my post. The point of the Establishment clause is to keep religion out of government and the government out of religion. While the Establishment protects the religious from government, it also protects the government from religion.

[john5746]

Actually it was a critique of the Israeli military, not Jewish socio-cultural behavior. At least that's how I read it. I see your point (and iNow's) but I'm really not inclined to dwell on it. He made a bad choice and he got "pwned". Let's move on.

 

I was using sarcasm, I agree with your point, and I will move on.

 

 

Would they really not have a problem, though, with someone that has another religious-symbol on his neck, like a pagan?

 

I'm seriously asking, I don't know. it *seems* to me that the answer is no; that they quite readily accepted the 'normal' Christian (perhaps Jewish) beliefs, but not all. And if that is the case, then I am not sure that saying it was supposed to "protect religions" (generalized) is the true analysis.

 

But again.. I don't know the answer. Would they have accepted these?

 

 

Thomas Jefferson did seem to really strive for religious freedom. I am sure most people were thinking only in terms of Christianity, but that was really because they had little experience with anything else.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jeffjews.html

 

I guess as long as they considered the people civilized, they would be accepted?

 

 

I think you missed the point of my post. The point of the Establishment clause is to keep religion out of government and the government out of religion. While the Establishment protects the religious from government, it also protects the government from religion.

 

I think they basically wanted to prevent sectarian states. Only Catholics can own land and vote in Maryland, only Baptists can do so in South Carolina, etc.

[DrDNA]

Fire the jerk.

He is wasting vauluable time, that could and should be spent teaching history, with his self serving rants

 

Would this be an appropriate use of the SFN poll?

[Severian]

Awwww, did you get your wittle feewwings hurt? Suck on a pacifier next time instead of making personal attacks and getting owned.

 

I made no personal attacks, and no ad homenim. Mooeypoo had explicitly set herself up as a moral arbiter, judging which 'moral values' were worthy and which were not. So her moral character, and indeed past actions, become relevant to the discussion.

 

For clarity, an ad homenim would have been, say, attacking a poster for their inability to post in adult English, rather than talking in baby-speak, or perhaps for using the work 'owned' in a childish context. But I would never do that, because the stupidity of the post itself is usually an easier target.

 

By definition, any judgement by a Jew is a Jewish value

 

A judgement made by a Jew is a Jewish judgement, not a value. A value held by a Jew is a Jewish value.

 

so when he attacks Israel(founded by Jews), he attacks the religion.

 

Rubbish. At the very most it would be anti-zionist, not anti-semitic. Israel is neither wholey composed of Jews, nor does it represent the totality of Jews on the planet.

 

It is simply pathetic to declare ant-sematism every time anyone criticises Israel. Ironically, Mooeypoo is the anti-semite since she explicitly attacked Jewish religious teachings.

 

And why were they being persecuted religiously? Because of RELIGION.

 

Their motivation in setting up a state separate from religion was not to prevent people from being religious. Quite the contrary, it was to facilitate the practice of any religion the population liked, free from persecution. If the 'founding fathers' could see you know, they would turn over in their graves.

[iNow]

A judgement made by a Jew is a Jewish judgement, not a value. A value held by a Jew is a Jewish value.

 

This has been covered already in this very thread, but the above is not accurate. While somewhat semantics, your definitions clearly go against those accepted.

 

A judgment made by a Jewish person is NOT, by default, a Jewish judgment.

It IS a judgment made by a Jewish person.

 

A value held by a Jewish person is NOT, by default, a Jewish value.

It IS a value held by a Jewish person.

 

 

Is it really so difficult to understand the difference?

 

 

 

Guys, I'm not gonna ask nicely again on the ad hom, I'm just gonna start mashing the delete button. Move on, please.

 

But I would never do that, because the stupidity of the post itself is usually an easier target.

 

<...>

 

It is simply pathetic to declare ant-sematism every time anyone criticises Israel. Ironically, Mooeypoo is the anti-semite since she explicitly attacked Jewish religious teachings.

 

Pangloss - I'm curious if your willingness to mash the delete button works both ways and applies to this one too?

[Pangloss]

Well to be honest, I looked back at his post and my second reaction to is was that it wasn't necessarily a personal attack. Ad hom, though, and abrasive as hell, and not really acceptable, IMO, but I'd probably have to seek a second opinion on it now before mashing the delete button.

 

And I'm literally walking out the door on vacation so I'm probably just going to have to punt. I'll post a note on the mod board for somebody to review this thread.

 

But I still think you're arguing semantics with Severian for no reason. You should acknowledge the obvious secondary defintion for those phrases, whether you feel that's what he meant or not. If it was important to you to that Lance acknowledge a logical point about GW, then surely you can do the same here.

[iNow]

I think there's quite good reason to agree on semantics when having a coversation.

 

Does he mean that all values held by this person stem directly from their teachings in religion and that is their sole source?

 

Or, does he mean that the values held by this person are all religious values because that person happens to identify with a religion?

 

If either of those, both are wrong. Values and morals, while reinforced by various religions, are not in and of themselves religious. There may be overlap, but to call them one and same is a bit like our old friend Fred56 saying entropy = change... in other words, inaccurate and wrong.

[Pangloss]

That's fine, then ask that question instead of stating that one cannot say that there are Jewish values. I know people who use that phrase to mean "values that I have, which may be the same as values that you have as an atheist, etc".

[Reaper]

I made no personal attacks, and no ad homenim. Mooeypoo had explicitly set herself up as a moral arbiter, judging which 'moral values' were worthy and which were not. So her moral character, and indeed past actions, become relevant to the discussion.

 

WHAT!? you did make ad hominems. Here is one such one:

 

Quite frankly' date=' I am quite happy not to share any 'human values' with someone who was a member of the Israeli military. Isn't one of your 'human values' to 'beat the crap out of' anyone who disagrees with you?

[/quote']

 

Not only is it an ad hominem, but it is also just plain wrong and incorrect. Just because someone is in the military doesn't mean that their values or morals are lacking.

 

In fact, I have a friend on my dorm floor that does serve in the military because of his strong moral/ethical convictions. He in fact agrees with most everything I say, and is certainly comparable to the moral convictions with many people on this site.

 

For clarity, an ad homenim would have been, say, attacking a poster for their inability to post in adult English, rather than talking in baby-speak, or perhaps for using the work 'owned' in a childish context. But I would never do that, because the stupidity of the post itself is usually an easier target.

 

And you just did it again, with this very statement. It isn't our fault that you got pwn3d. You are starting to dig yourself into a hole here...

 

 

A judgement made by a Jew is a Jewish judgement, not a value. A value held by a Jew is a Jewish value.

 

Read iNow's post.

 

Ironically, Mooeypoo is the anti-semite since she explicitly attacked Jewish religious teachings.

 

And this is an ad hominem and a non-sequitur. Criticizing the beliefs of one group of people does not mean that they are anti-(insert ethnic group here), or are attacking them.

 

 

Severian, I'm actually quite surprised that these generalizations and ad hominems are coming from you, especially because you of all people should know better than this.

 

And don't you dare try to play semantic word games with me, because I can guarantee that you (or anyone else for that matter) will not win. I'm quite skilled in making words having any meaning I want them too..

 

=======================================

 

 

Anyways......enough of my rant. Back to the discussion. As before, I stand by my original statement, that this teacher did indeed cross the line, way over. It is, as I said before, never ok to throw ad hominems, especially inside of a classroom.

 

Would this be an appropriate use of the SFN poll?

 

I think so. If someone who has the ability to do that would like to that is.

[ParanoiA]

Quite frankly' date=' I am quite happy not to share any 'human values' with someone who was a member of the Israeli military. Isn't one of your 'human values' to 'beat the crap out of' anyone who disagrees with you? [/quote']

 

Not only is it an ad hominem, but it is also just plain wrong and incorrect. Just because someone is in the military doesn't mean that their values or morals are lacking.

 

It's not an ad hom. It's an opinion. Every military's implied mission is to force compliance with...force. That means beating the crap out of people who don't agree with you. Obviously if you're fighting a war, they don't agree with you - yet here you are beating the crap out of them because of it. Sounds accurate to me.

 

If I join the KKK, then you're probably going to assume my values mirror theirs huh? Is that a presumption? Of course it is, but a logical and reasonable presumption nonetheless.

 

 

 

Mooeypoo, you brought this on yourself here:

 

Yes' date=' one more thing:

 

What the heck is it with "Christian Values" anyways? Relgious folk are picky, they pick the "values" they like and call them in the name of their religion.. "Muslim Values" / "Jewish Values" / "Christian Values".

 

I would recommend that religious folk that think "Christian Values" are depicting justice and goodness to read the bible *AGAIN* before they suggest that as religious folk, their "values" are better than atheist/deist morality.[/quote']

 

You went off, yet again, on another self therapeutic tangent on religion and expected no religious members to take offense. I advise psychiatric help on your unhealthy, intolerant aversion to religion and further advise a more humbled approach to the value and righteousness of your personal morality code.

 

 

Seems pretty obvious to me that "Christian Values" is just a label for those values that typically find themselves in Christian belief. "Libertarian Values" is a phrase I would use - actually I would probably say "Libertarian Principles". The word "values" has too much baggage anymore, it seems.

 

That doesn't make a particular value christian or libertarian, it's just a useful reference to that set of values that a certain label finds important. I don't understand the big deal, here.

 

Severian does a great job of pointing out the obvious unapologetically. To say "My morals are better than yours" is the obvious implication by anyone who claims a moral set of any kind. Why would you choose it if you didn't think it was the best, or at least preferred over all others?

 

No doubt, I believe my moral code trumps everyone's in this forum. That's why I chose it. Duh. And I have no reason to believe anyone else in this forum believes their morals to be inferior to mine. We all think we're right, respectively. Gee...surprise anyone?

[DrDNA]

Go to the poll. Go to the poll!