Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Cxkslei

Teacher = Dumb

Recommended Posts

Possibly the most biased thing I've read this month.

 

Teachers don't discuss their religion to students.

Teachers don't discuss their political standings to students (for the most part).

Teachers shouldn't be talking about the sexuality to students.

 

It's not discrimination, there's just no need to talk about your sexual orientation during school.

 

If he'd answered "Because I haven't met the right woman yet" or something like that he'd be divulging his sexual orientation. My teachers don't get fired for saying that they're getting married to their loved ones in x amount of months, or that they have a baby on the way.

All he had to do was say he hadn't met the right person or whatever. No need to explain that it's illegal to get married.

 

So he should be FIRED for explaining that it's against the law.

 

"No need to..." That's something I hear a lot of bigots saying to justify stuff like this. When you say "No need to..." it's generally nothing to FIRE SOMEONE OVER.

 

This is discrimination. There's no denying it. Stuff like this makes me sick to my stomach.

What if the teacher was talking about anything else that is illegal. "I would smoke marijuana, but I can't because it's illegal." "I would have a slave, but I can't because it's illegal."

 

If this was at a highschool then I doubt anything bad would have happened, but it's fourth grade. They should be learning long division, not what sexuality is legal and what isn't.

 

Was the punishment a little harsh? Yes it was and there is really no need to fire someone over something like that, but the situation didn't call for that talk.

 

Don't tell me you've never strayed off-topic with your primary school teachers. :huh:

 

And you keep downplaying this with words like "No need to..." and "a little harsh." We're talking about someone being fired here.

And talk about their personal life? No, no I haven't.

 

My school has strict rules regarding what information teachers can deluge to students. For all we know that school could be the same way.

 

Should he have been fired? Most likely not, but we don't have all the details here. Maybe this wasn't the first time he's been in trouble with the higher up people, maybe the teachers all had a rule against personal information. Maybe this article isn't telling the full story.

 

Agreed. Thank you, redmonke.

 

Aliath, what you said before just proved my hypothesis that 90 percent of the world's population are idiots. No sense of subtlety at all.

 

God, you're right, I'm such a fudgeing idiot, aren't I? Who am I to say that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation?!

 

It's not like it's anything I should be concerned about anyways, huh?

 

Pretty much just covering up embarrassment for being owned.

 

I'm also sure that this teacher must have been under scrutiny before hand, or else he wouldn't have gotten fired.

Seriously, they wouldn't just fire a teacher for explaining his sexuality. There would have had to have been something else in the works for him to get fired over.

 

Get my drift?

 

Tell me how you know this.

 

Redmonke, I don't know about you, but since preschool our teachers have told us innocent stuff like that. You don't get fired for stuff like that.

 

And Esperluette.

Edited by Allibereliath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possibly the most biased thing I've read this month.

 

Teachers don't discuss their religion to students.

Teachers don't discuss their political standings to students (for the most part).

Teachers shouldn't be talking about the sexuality to students.

 

It's not discrimination, there's just no need to talk about your sexual orientation during school.

 

If he'd answered "Because I haven't met the right woman yet" or something like that he'd be divulging his sexual orientation. My teachers don't get fired for saying that they're getting married to their loved ones in x amount of months, or that they have a baby on the way.

All he had to do was say he hadn't met the right person or whatever. No need to explain that it's illegal to get married.

 

So he should be FIRED for explaining that it's against the law.

 

"No need to..." That's something I hear a lot of bigots saying to justify stuff like this. When you say "No need to..." it's generally nothing to FIRE SOMEONE OVER.

 

This is discrimination. There's no denying it. Stuff like this makes me sick to my stomach.

What if the teacher was talking about anything else that is illegal. "I would smoke marijuana, but I can't because it's illegal." "I would have a slave, but I can't because it's illegal."

 

If this was at a highschool then I doubt anything bad would have happened, but it's fourth grade. They should be learning long division, not what sexuality is legal and what isn't.

 

Was the punishment a little harsh? Yes it was and there is really no need to fire someone over something like that, but the situation didn't call for that talk.

 

Don't tell me you've never strayed off-topic with your primary school teachers. :huh:

 

And you keep downplaying this with words like "No need to..." and "a little harsh." We're talking about someone being fired here.

And talk about their personal life? No, no I haven't.

 

My school has strict rules regarding what information teachers can deluge to students. For all we know that school could be the same way.

 

Should he have been fired? Most likely not, but we don't have all the details here. Maybe this wasn't the first time he's been in trouble with the higher up people, maybe the teachers all had a rule against personal information. Maybe this article isn't telling the full story.

 

Agreed. Thank you, redmonke.

 

Aliath, what you said before just proved my hypothesis that 90 percent of the world's population are idiots. No sense of subtlety at all.

 

God, you're right, I'm such a fudgeing idiot, aren't I? Who am I to say that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation?!

 

It's not like it's anything I should be concerned about anyways, huh?

 

Pretty much just covering up embarrassment for being owned.

 

I'm also sure that this teacher must have been under scrutiny before hand, or else he wouldn't have gotten fired.

Seriously, they wouldn't just fire a teacher for explaining his sexuality. There would have had to have been something else in the works for him to get fired over.

 

Get my drift?

 

Tell me how you know this.

 

Redmonke, I don't know about you, but since preschool our teachers have told us innocent stuff like that. You don't get fired for stuff like that.

 

And Esperluette.

 

 

I apologize if you took it the wrong way. I was referring to this:

 

Personally, Esperluette, I don't think anyone can get their point across if they're too discrete. You've gotta make connections! If the media didn't say "This is discriminating against gays!" and get everyone riled up nobody would care.

 

Look at Fox News. They manage to get people riled up with blatant lies.

 

In saying that '90 percent of all people are idiots', I was not stating that you are an idiot, since that would be axiomatically incorrect. The people you described in your post have no sense of subtlety, and therefore are idiots in that field.

 

Thank you. Please try not to get too riled up over that. There was already an altercation earlier in the day, and I have to admit that I have no desire to lose the respect of another individual with whom I have relatively regular contact. I see no point in arguing over this. Homosexuality should be simply another facet of human culture, and the people who disagree are, in my opinion, bigoted idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possibly the most biased thing I've read this month.

 

Teachers don't discuss their religion to students.

Teachers don't discuss their political standings to students (for the most part).

Teachers shouldn't be talking about the sexuality to students.

 

It's not discrimination, there's just no need to talk about your sexual orientation during school.

 

If he'd answered "Because I haven't met the right woman yet" or something like that he'd be divulging his sexual orientation. My teachers don't get fired for saying that they're getting married to their loved ones in x amount of months, or that they have a baby on the way.

All he had to do was say he hadn't met the right person or whatever. No need to explain that it's illegal to get married.

 

So he should be FIRED for explaining that it's against the law.

 

"No need to..." That's something I hear a lot of bigots saying to justify stuff like this. When you say "No need to..." it's generally nothing to FIRE SOMEONE OVER.

 

This is discrimination. There's no denying it. Stuff like this makes me sick to my stomach.

What if the teacher was talking about anything else that is illegal. "I would smoke marijuana, but I can't because it's illegal." "I would have a slave, but I can't because it's illegal."

 

If this was at a highschool then I doubt anything bad would have happened, but it's fourth grade. They should be learning long division, not what sexuality is legal and what isn't.

 

Was the punishment a little harsh? Yes it was and there is really no need to fire someone over something like that, but the situation didn't call for that talk.

 

Don't tell me you've never strayed off-topic with your primary school teachers. :huh:

 

And you keep downplaying this with words like "No need to..." and "a little harsh." We're talking about someone being fired here.

And talk about their personal life? No, no I haven't.

 

My school has strict rules regarding what information teachers can deluge to students. For all we know that school could be the same way.

 

Should he have been fired? Most likely not, but we don't have all the details here. Maybe this wasn't the first time he's been in trouble with the higher up people, maybe the teachers all had a rule against personal information. Maybe this article isn't telling the full story.

 

Agreed. Thank you, redmonke.

 

Aliath, what you said before just proved my hypothesis that 90 percent of the world's population are idiots. No sense of subtlety at all.

 

God, you're right, I'm such a fudgeing idiot, aren't I? Who am I to say that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation?!

 

It's not like it's anything I should be concerned about anyways, huh?

 

Pretty much just covering up embarrassment for being owned.

 

I'm also sure that this teacher must have been under scrutiny before hand, or else he wouldn't have gotten fired.

Seriously, they wouldn't just fire a teacher for explaining his sexuality. There would have had to have been something else in the works for him to get fired over.

 

Get my drift?

 

Tell me how you know this.

 

Redmonke, I don't know about you, but since preschool our teachers have told us innocent stuff like that. You don't get fired for stuff like that.

 

And Esperluette.

 

 

I apologize if you took it the wrong way. I was referring to this:

 

Personally, Esperluette, I don't think anyone can get their point across if they're too discrete. You've gotta make connections! If the media didn't say "This is discriminating against gays!" and get everyone riled up nobody would care.

 

Look at Fox News. They manage to get people riled up with blatant lies.

 

In saying that '90 percent of all people are idiots', I was not stating that you are an idiot, since that would be axiomatically incorrect. The people you described in your post have no sense of subtlety, and therefore are idiots in that field.

 

Thank you. Please try not to get too riled up over that. There was already an altercation earlier in the day, and I have to admit that I have no desire to lose the respect of another individual with whom I have relatively regular contact. I see no point in arguing over this. Homosexuality should be simply another facet of human culture, and the people who disagree are, in my opinion, bigoted idiots.

 

But ignoring the injustices caused by those "bigoted idiots" will in some way correct them and prevent future ones? I understand the point you are making about sensationalizing and over-emotionalizing events, but I don't think that is the same thing as writing an opinion article on a case of sexual-orientation based discrimination. By ignoring instances such as this, we aren't discouraging them, we're displaying acquiescence to them.

 

To be fair, I can see the point redmonke is making. The article definitely doesn't have the feel of being balanced, so there may very well be stuff that was left out. For all we know he could have a history of inappropriate classroom discussions, or the school could have a specific policy against discussing one's personal life. However, if all that happened was what was discussed in the article, this is both overkill and unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we require a debate about semantics? Highlight all the words that are synonymous with 'ignore' in my posts and I will concede to your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.