[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by slap_j

It's also acutely self-interested which is anti-Christian.

And that is the far better way to look at this, in my opinion.

Again...to me this doesn't seem like bullying. I understand why you think it is. In my head, to be a bully implies intent which I'm not sure exists here. This isn't hate-speech, this is a kid who said something stupid without thinking about it. Unfortunately, because of the teacher's reaction, the child will also find justification in his remarks.

What if he had said, I don't accept homosexuality?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

Again...to me this doesn't seem like bullying. I understand why you think it is. In my head, to be a bully implies intent which I'm not sure exists here.

I agree with you. And I actually did say as much in my first post in the thread. It was likely just a thoughtless comment.

What if he had said, I don't accept homosexuality?

It wouldn't have made any more sense than the other comment but there is a difference between homosexual sex and homosexual people. A rather large one actually. So yes, it is different.

[tlj009]

What is mild about rejecting a person for their own nature? That is utterly violent.

Violent, no. And what could he have said to be more mild and still get his point across?

What would be acceptable dissent in regards to not bullying homosexuals on the basis of their homosexuality?

I didn't realize that he was advocating bullying homosexuals. I thought he merely said "I don't accept gays" in a conversation as to why the Confederate flag was unacceptable to display but the rainbow flag was not.

inhumaneness - the quality of lacking compassion or consideration for others

"Tom is running" doesn't show compassion or consideration for others but it is also not inhumane. There is a cruelty involved to make something inhumane. I just don't see it in the boy's statement.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Violent, no. And what could he have said to be more mild and still get his point across?

Sure it's violent. A categorical rejection on the basis of something like that can have severe deleterious effects. Suicides have resulted.

"Tom is running" doesn't show compassion or consideration for others but it is also not inhumane. There is a cruelty involved to make something inhumane. I just don't see it in the boy's statement.

To call that phrase inhumane is a category error. Much like calling a banana "apolitical." And no, cruelty (as in knowingly causing pain) is not a requisite for inhumane treatment. Again, as per the dictionary.

Like I said before, I agree with the ACLU.

[tlj009]

Sure it's violent. A categorical rejection on the basis of something like that can have severe deleterious effects. Suicides have resulted.

Suicides have resulted from girls rejecting a guy too, but I would have to say that most rejections that I have experienced have not been violent. The guy didn't appear to be hostile about it. And it was rather mild. Rejection is not always "utterly violent". And labeling comments such as these as violent and inhumane simply puts an end to any discussion and pits the two sides against each other. Making enemies when they could simply disagree.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by tlj009

The guy didn't appear to be hostile about it. And it was rather mild.

Shallow and self-interested dismissals like that do violence to people in a way (lots of language can). It has nothing to do with malice or hostility or even intent. Rejecting romantic advances is entirely reasonable, on the other hand. You have no obligation to be in a romantic relationship with someone. But you are obligated to love your neighbor, and not on merit.

And labeling comments such as these as violent and inhumane simply puts an end to any discussion and pits the two sides against each other. Making enemies when they could simply disagree.

I'm not speaking on behalf of either side here other than to say the teacher was wrong to throw him out. I don't know what conversation I'm stifling by condemning the language that was used. As I said to S.B.Nichols, he could disagree about gay rights without rejecting gay people altogether. I also said I don't know what exactly was intended by the remark.

[Dwight Schrute]

a teacher should leave their personal beliefs and opinions at the door and instruct students with the subject matter in the textbooks / syllabus. I see an economics teacher wearing a politically charged t-shirt as someone with a chip on their shoulder. the teacher's actions of forcing a student to remove a belt buckle, and for chucking a student out for in essence disagreeing with their shirt, is in my opinion more serious bullying than the perceived threat from students wearing buckles or disagreeing with a teacher's shirt.

but in a nutshell, and I shudder to say this, I agree with the ACLU that the teacher was out of line. I don't know where I fall on the issue of a student's right to free speech in a classroom setting.

and that also does not mean I agree with the student's choice of words. but how many times have I been guilty of meaning one thing and explaining it poorly or in a less eloquent manner than I intended? we are nitpicking over a minor issue here while the major issue - a teacher abusing their position to bully students - is left to the wayside?

[JerryLove]

Since when did *anyone* have the right to say whatever they wanted at school?