Teaching Proper Etiquette In Arizona School

[Pearl]

Probably not. This is FYM - pretty much every thread turns into something completely different, usually involving the same arguments and the same individuals.

Tell me about it!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I made a thread that was meant to discuss etiquette and male-female relationships, and now we're talking about religion? I don't get it. I mean, I did read the whole thread, but I still don't know how religion got into this topic.

Because somehow religion gets into every thread, I guess it's an obsession of sorts. Maybe we should start a contest to see how far of an unrelated stretch we can create with religion being dragged into it.

 

[BonosSaint]

A page maybe?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I meant more of an unrelated thread topic. Like jock itch, or something like that. Maybe athlete's foot. Somehow that has to involve religion.

 

[BVS]

If you pray jock itch will go away.

 

[anitram]

I made a thread that was meant to discuss etiquette and male-female relationships

Negatory, purpleoscar already explained to us why you started this thread:

The only reason this thread was brought up was just to bring some argument that the teacher is anti-women in some way.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

^Wow, I missed that one. He's inside Pearl's head?

All that's missing is some random photos from diamond. He must be busy fighting rappers with Mitt.

 

[Galeongirl]

I meant more of an unrelated thread topic. Like jock itch, or something like that. Maybe athlete's foot. Somehow that has to involve religion.

If you pray jock itch will go away.

Dang, you're good!


Perhaps we should get a seperate thread for the religious fundies so they can talk amongst themselves there instead of bringing each thread off topic?

 

[purpleoscar]

I'm a religious fundie now?

 

[Pearl]

^

One thing I do know, you are flat out wrong to say that I felt the teacher is anti-woman. How the hell does rejecting old-fashioned etiquette make me believe women shouldn't be treated with respect?

 

[PhilsFan]

I'm a religious fundie now?

I wouldn't say you are a religious fundie, but somehow equating ANYTHING in this discussion to religion is something I thought only religious fundies could do up until now, so I'm not really sure.

 

[BVS]

I wouldn't say you are a religious fundie, but somehow equating ANYTHING in this discussion to religion is something I thought only religious fundies could do up until now, so I'm not really sure.

I think it goes to show how sucked up into neo-con thinking this poster has become. Here is someone who admittingly wasn't raised religious but has been sucked into a fundamental mindset. The cause has overshadowed any real logic or personal experience.

 

[purpleoscar]

One thing I do know, you are flat out wrong to say that I felt the teacher is anti-woman.

How the hell does rejecting old-fashioned etiquette make me believe women shouldn't be treated with respect?

I'm not sure what you mean by that question. I don't think that you "believe women shouldn't be treated with respect" because you are "rejecting old-fashioned etiquette". I'm sure you believe women should be treated with respect. My opinion is that the article was posted because you were bothered by what you think is sexist behaviour by the teacher. Especially when I read this:

But is teaching gender-specific etiquette perpetuating what some consider sexist traditions?

I'm not sure I would like to be treated like this. On a date, definitely, but on daily basis? No, because I am not a damsel in distress. Yes, I would like to be treated with respect by the male species, but not to the point where I cannot do things by myself.

I believe the point of the teacher was to find gross and obvious examples to teach thickhead grade 10 boys. That's why he didn't do it right at the beginning of the course as an agenda. The subtleties you prefer probably won't work for those thickheads until they grow up. Also the girls and parents are happy which shows that the behaviour was probably much worse before and they are glad for any improvement. I often found classroom environments like junior high or high school to be like prisons or zoos the way many guys behaved and even more extreme measures than old-fashioned etiquette had to be used.

My favorite teacher reaction though would have to be this jerk who got up to the front of the class and pulled his pants down and mooned the class. The teacher bent his arm behind his back and threw him out of the class by opening the door with his head. x1,000,000. The teacher got a big reprimand but the student was so over the top consistently everyday it still felt justified. There was no way you could concentrate in that class with that guy acting up.

Anyways if you feel I misunderstood your opinion then I'm sorry. I'm used to FYM posts being there precisely because of some controversy involving racism, sexism, homophobia, socialism vs. capitalism, right vs. left etc, etc.

 

[purpleoscar]

I think it goes to show how sucked up into neo-con thinking this poster has become. Here is someone who admittingly wasn't raised religious but has been sucked into a fundamental mindset. The cause has overshadowed any real logic or personal experience.

How did you know? You sound like a conspiracy theorist. All I am is thankful for what Christianity has done for us despite it's flaws. In fact belief in God created a lot of courage for people to fight tyrants precisely because God was above them. Can't you see the practical value of a constitution by God so man can't fiddle with it? That shouldn't make me a fundie to point out practical uses of religion. If I believed the Bible literally then I would be a fundamentalist.

It's possible for religious and non-religious to agree on ethics without agreeing on whether it's man-made or God-made ethics. It's also possible for people to be modern and go to Church. There are left-wing people in Churches, just so you know.

Another reason why this post is inaccurate is because I don't have a problem with school replacing or improving on what the Church does. Adding a philosophy course to high school would remove the debate about teaching religion in biology because a metaphysics/philosophy class can include agnostic views as well.

Dostoyevsky warned about nihlism and look at how the 20th century turned out. Secular institutions can have their bad reputation as well, so PhilsFan's need to want to slap me is pointless. Why not get slapped into secular Gulag tourism.

YouTube - Gulag Tourism

 

[VintagePunk]

Christianity has also had its hand in repressing groups of people, and making people toe the line out of fear. Surely you, who is constantly decrying narcissism, can recognize that for what it is? Hardly in line with your Buddhist leanings, I would think. Oh, you're a mass of contradictions.

 

[BVS]

How did you know? You sound like a conspiracy theorist. All I am is thankful for what Christianity has done for us despite it's flaws. In fact belief in God created a lot of courage for people to fight tyrants precisely because God was above them. Can't you see the practical value of a constitution by God so man can't fiddle with it? That shouldn't make me a fundie to point out practical uses of religion. If I believed the Bible literally then I would be a fundamentalist.

No conspiracy. This is the type of thinking you've displayed since day one in here, that is that you align yourself with any idea that falls under the umbrella of "conservative" no matter what, even if it goes against your own experience. The cause comes first. A perfect example is gay marriage, you couldn't argue it from a religious standpoint because you weren't religious, so you tried from a secular standpoint and failed, you no longer participate in those debates but the fact is the only reason you argued it in the first place was that it was part of your party's platform. This is the same thing.

It's possible for religious and non-religious to agree on ethics without agreeing on whether it's man-made or God-made ethics. It's also possible for people to be modern and go to Church. There are left-wing people in Churches, just so you know.

And here is where you contradict yourself oh once again. OF COURSE it's possible for religious and non-religious people to agree on ethics, hence it's not the absence of religion that is to blame. You just destroyed your own argument.

And yes, I am one of those "left wing" people who believe, just so you know.

 

[purpleoscar]

No conspiracy. This is the type of thinking you've displayed since day one in here, that is that you align yourself with any idea that falls under the umbrella of "conservative" no matter what, even if it goes against your own experience. The cause comes first. A perfect example is gay marriage, you couldn't argue it from a religious standpoint because you weren't religious, so you tried from a secular standpoint and failed, you no longer participate in those debates but the fact is the only reason you argued it in the first place was that it was part of your party's platform. This is the same thing.

And here is where you contradict yourself oh once again. OF COURSE it's possible for religious and non-religious people to agree on ethics, hence it's not the absence of religion that is to blame. You just destroyed your own argument.

And yes, I am one of those "left wing" people who believe, just so you know.

Yes but I actually agreed I made a mistake with gay marriage. I'm not yet convinced that you know when to admit a mistake.

The reason the absence of religion is to blame doesn't mean we need to all go back to Church quickly, but it means the school system and parents are going to have to take on more roles than expected which ties into my original discussion on a teacher taking on an etiquette role.

Christianity has also had its hand in repressing groups of people, and making people toe the line out of fear. Surely you, who is constantly decrying narcissism, can recognize that for what it is? Hardly in line with your Buddhist leanings, I would think. Oh, you're a mass of contradictions.

Remember I'm being thankful for what was good in Christianity. I'm totally aware of the drawbacks and haven't been to Church since I was a kid. Towing the party line pretty much is peer-pressure and everyone is exposed to that including left-winger "I know reality" types as well. Even my meditation practice is so secular that it doesn't include nirvana or karma. I want to take what is best about religion and throw out the supersitious element that has more to do with beliefs before the scientific method. A Buddhist monk can't know absolute reality precisely because the senses cannot observe that much detail but meditation can improve equanimity which is sorely needed in the modern age.

BTW there are some Christians that practice meditation or staying in silence. It's all the same thing to improve equanimity and to slow down negative ruminations that affect our decisions.

 

[BVS]

Yes but I actually agreed I made a mistake with gay marriage. I'm not yet convinced that you know when to admit a mistake.

You missed my point, I know you admitted your mistake, my point was you put your party's platform first and don't think about the issues until forced to.

I've admitted my mistakes many times, but just like the fact that I'm a believer(and said so many times in here) you failed to remember or ignored it.

The reason the absence of religion is to blame doesn't mean we need to all go back to Church quickly, but it means the school system and parents are going to have to take on more roles than expected which ties into my original discussion on a teacher taking on an etiquette role.

This doesn't make any sense. So it's ok if only a few go back to church, then society's problems are solved? If the blame is on the absence of religion then shouldn't you be arguing that everyone needs religion?

And since when does school have to take the role on of teaching morality or manners, concepts that parents and families should be teaching? You can't have this both ways. You can't say schools should leave the sex talk up to parents yet manners and morality are now the school's role.

 

[Galeongirl]

I'm a religious fundie now?

The way you're talking here, involving religion in EVERY conversation in EVERY thread and the way you're looking down on nonbelievers... yes, you're a fundie in my eyes. You have no respect for people who don't see the same way you do and you'll blame it all on our 'ignorance' of your oh so beautiful religion. Because ofcourse, with religion we would be oh so much better off.

 

[PhilsFan]

The reason the absence of religion is to blame doesn't mean we need to all go back to Church quickly, but it means the school system and parents are going to have to take on more roles than expected which ties into my original discussion on a teacher taking on an etiquette role.

It's not a reason. It's not a reason. It's not a reason.

 

[nathan1977]

Good old FYM.

 

[purpleoscar]

You missed my point, I know you admitted your mistake, my point was you put your party's platform first and don't think about the issues until forced to.

I've admitted my mistakes many times, but just like the fact that I'm a believer(and said so many times in here) you failed to remember or ignored it.

Debate is good because there often isn’t enough time to research everything in the universe and it exposes you to other ideas you wouldn't find so quickly. If you admitted mistakes then you’ve benefited from debate as well. I don't know of anyone who has all understanding of everything before a debate so your standards are extremely high. Every side has talking points they like and it's good to test them.

This doesn't make any sense. So it's ok if only a few go back to church, then society's problems are solved? If the blame is on the absence of religion then shouldn't you be arguing that everyone needs religion?

You must have misunderstood my post. If a person has horrible behaviour and they improve their behaviour because of a religion then no one should complain. Since most aren't going to do that and I don't recommend people to go to Church unless they really believe and can be helped by it. I believe that the school will have to expose students to philosophy (different religions and secular philosophies) because parents never did everything in the past and often had to rely on community, religion and parents of the child's friends to keep a consistent lessons when the child wasn’t around the parents. Today with modern media and a multicultural society you can't do that. So when Church is out the window then some other institution will have to bring in that self-discipline somehow. Whether it’s a combination of school, daycare, etc, etc bad behaviour will provoke a response from new institutions.

And since when does school have to take the role on of teaching morality or manners, concepts that parents and families should be teaching? You can't have this both ways. You can't say schools should leave the sex talk up to parents yet manners and morality are now the school's role.

It’s necessary to have some reaction by schools and the article that started this post proved it with a clear example, and parents can opt out of they choose to. It doesn’t have to be inflexible. Schools in the past had a hand in discipline but that’s being eroded because parents will complain and lawyers with cry out “abuse” but we know that discipline is needed.

The way you're talking here, involving religion in EVERY conversation in EVERY thread and the way you're looking down on nonbelievers... yes, you're a fundie in my eyes. You have no respect for people who don't see the same way you do and you'll blame it all on our 'ignorance' of your oh so beautiful religion. Because ofcourse, with religion we would be oh so much better off.

The way you use the words “EVERY” AND “fundie” looks exaggerated precisely because you just filled my mouth with YOUR words. I can’t find anything in this post that is accurate other than I talked about the subject of religion. I don’t believe you are trying to understand me at all, you just want to use the word “fundie” as a slur because it makes you feel good.

I’m an eclectic. I take good ideas from anywhere. I don’t care if it’s from a religion or a secular philosopher. Hence that's why I say that I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If I don’t believe in all tenets of a religion I don’t have to throw good things away that a religion supports.

BTW some people have been better off with religion. It's great you or I don't need it but others may. Wisdom is wisdom. I don't care where it comes from or how old it is as long as it's still useful.

It's not a reason. It's not a reason. It's not a reason.

In your opinion of course. In my opinion when you remove a large institution there will be some cracks left open that will have to be filled elsewhere.

 

[BVS]

You've very convoluted in this discussion... I gotta bail or you'll start doing those page long responses that never answer the questions.

 

[PhilsFan]

In your opinion of course. In my opinion when you remove a large institution there will be some cracks left open that will have to be filled elsewhere.

Wow. I don't know where to begin.

First of all, the "institution" still exists. Religion is everywhere. The vast majority of Americans associate themselves with a religion. Your phrasing implies that religion has just disappeared. It hasn't at all. Something like, what 15% of Americans are atheist? That's not a huge number.

Second, your entire argument is based around the idea that religion provides something that atheism and agnosticism cannot. This is the idea I disagree with the most. Why? Because it's complete bullshit. There's no proof of this. At all. This is just you making shit up.

Third, you act as if religion could make up for bad parenting. I'd argue that a child's upbringing is much, much more influential on children than religious belief.

 

[Galeongirl]

The way you use the words “EVERY” AND “fundie” looks exaggerated precisely because you just filled my mouth with YOUR words. I can’t find anything in this post that is accurate other than I talked about the subject of religion. I don’t believe you are trying to understand me at all, you just want to use the word “fundie” as a slur because it makes you feel good.

I’m an eclectic. I take good ideas from anywhere. I don’t care if it’s from a religion or a secular philosopher. Hence that's why I say that I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If I don’t believe in all tenets of a religion I don’t have to throw good things away that a religion supports.

BTW some people have been better off with religion. It's great you or I don't need it but others may. Wisdom is wisdom. I don't care where it comes from or how old it is as long as it's still useful.

OH yeah, I totally want to use the word fundie because it makes me feel good. Or not, as you just put YOUR words in MY mouth.
Hello kettle, meet pot.

You are right in thinking I'm not trying to understand you, I gave up on that after a couple of your posts ages ago. I don't think I will ever understand you, and the same can be said vice versa. The only difference is that you still claim you understand everyone and everything, you even misinterpret people's post(see the original post of this thread) and claim it's like you see it.

Ofcourse some people are better off with religion, that's why religion was created in the first place. To give people hope and to teach people proper values. But that doesn't mean it has to be shoved down everyone's throat. We know so much more know than we did then, and I have a right to choose whether I want religion or not. Just as much as everyone else has the right to choose whether they want it or not. And ofcourse wisdom is good. But it's not good when people are using facts from a 2000 year old book as the absolute truth when in the modern days they've already been proven wrong or outdated. I'm fine with religious people, I even have a lot of religious friends. It's just the point where people start taking it WAY too literally and try to shove it down my throat I have a problem with.

That said, I'm sure you'll find a nice way to respond to this in your own twisted way. I'm quite sure nothing will be solved here because it's a pointless discussion no side is going to 'win' here. I'm out. Have fun with this thread bro.

 

[purpleoscar]

OH yeah, I totally want to use the word fundie because it makes me feel good. Or not, as you just put YOUR words in MY mouth.
Hello kettle, meet pot.

Considering how inaccurate it was it looked emotional. It was like you were arguing with another person and responding to another post. If you have an irritation with religious fundies just let it out.

You are right in thinking I'm not trying to understand you, I gave up on that after a couple of your posts ages ago. I don't think I will ever understand you, and the same can be said vice versa. The only difference is that you still claim you understand everyone and everything, you even misinterpret people's post(see the original post of this thread) and claim it's like you see it.

I don't claim to know everything I just have lots of opinions. What's the point of having opinions unless you believe them? I also don't misrepresent posts anymore than anyone here and this thread is a perfect example.

Ofcourse some people are better off with religion, that's why religion was created in the first place. To give people hope and to teach people proper values. But that doesn't mean it has to be shoved down everyone's throat. We know so much more know than we did then, and I have a right to choose whether I want religion or not. Just as much as everyone else has the right to choose whether they want it or not. And of course wisdom is good. But it's not good when people are using facts from a 2000 year old book as the absolute truth when in the modern days they've already been proven wrong or outdated. I'm fine with religious people, I even have a lot of religious friends. It's just the point where people start taking it WAY too literally and try to shove it down my throat I have a problem with.

Don't worry I'm not going to give you a pamphlet. You see this is the problem. I was talking about etiquette and now it’s me shoving religion down someone’s throat. Religion has a lot of philosophy and in the past most people got philosophy from religion. Today you have to read philosophy books on your own to be exposed to it or find some university courses. Most people don’t do that and instead watch TV or read unrelated books. You won’t see Aristotle on the bestseller list.

That said, I'm sure you'll find a nice way to respond to this in your own twisted way. I'm quite sure nothing will be solved here because it's a pointless discussion no side is going to 'win' here. I'm out. Have fun with this thread bro.

Actually it’s just me on this side and everyone else on the other. I became the target of ire against religion. It reminds me of the movie The Gentleman’s Agreement where Gregory Peck is mistaken for a Jew and he feels first hand hatred from others. I’m definitely having fun.

First of all, the "institution" still exists. Religion is everywhere. The vast majority of Americans associate themselves with a religion. Your phrasing implies that religion has just disappeared. It hasn't at all. Something like, what 15% of Americans are atheist? That's not a huge number.

The institution is secular. People don't go to church as often as they used to. Now if you feel you are better than what's in the Church that's great and there's no need to go there then.

Second, your entire argument is based around the idea that religion provides something that atheism and agnosticism cannot. This is the idea I disagree with the most. Why? Because it's complete bullshit. There's no proof of this. At all. This is just you making shit up.

No that's not by argument. I'm saying people often replace religion with nothing but pop culture.

Third, you act as if religion could make up for bad parenting. I'd argue that a child's upbringing is much, much more influential on children than religious belief.

Yes but parenting is never 100% and that's assuming that all parents are good. We know institutions exist precisely because of people falling through the cracks. Being a person of the left persuasion you should know that argument since it works so well against anarchist libertarians. That's why the survival of conservatism depends on finding the right balance of government/private sector and personal freedoms/duty. We can't assume parents can be replaced but we also know that parents (especially busy ones) can't cover everything. Peer pressure and pop culture are very influential as well. I don’t see much pop culture or peer pressure that teaches manners and morals. That has to come from some authority that people have some fear of shame from. Either that God is watching or simply because it's expected in school not to rough people up and that there will be consequences when disobeyed. Whatever works.

You've very convoluted in this discussion... I gotta bail or you'll start doing those page long responses that never answer the questions.

That's usually what happens when you don't like the answers.