Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pure in heart abstinence only education
Options
Comments
-
They weren't given any books or leaflets to take away with them and their request for their sources were declined. I also contacted the school and asked for these but was refused even though the consent form promised parents would be given follow up information to use at home.
You'd almost think there was some sort of plan here to talk scare-story bollix in the private sessions, exclude the teacher or any other (potentially!) independent adult from the class, silence in-class criticism with the local religious authority figure, and then claim "plausible deniability" when called on the BS, wouldn't you?0 -
-
Some of the things they came out with were telling anyone who had issues with their sexuality to contact their priest, telling girls that boys don't want to settle down with a woman who is too intelligent and a discussion about the way girls dress that sounded very close to victim blaming those subject to sexual assaults.
Good jaysus; even I find hard to believe they would come out with something like that? Please tell me the girls in the class treated it with howls of derision....
P.0 -
-
Good jaysus; even I find hard to believe they would come out with something like that? Please tell me the girls in the class treated it with howls of derision....
P.
I wish that was the case
There's about 20 in my daughters class, apart from herself there are two other atheists and the rest of them are church goers, they seem to be a very conservative lot. Aodhan O'Riordan from Labour was in last year getting their views on a range of social issues and the majority were very right wing in their views. I don't understand how in a modern country we can produce kids so blinkered. 0 -
Advertisement
-
Has anybody seen the film Wadjda?Please tell me the girls in the class treated it with howls of derision.
Snowflake (aged seven AND A HALF) and I were watching it the other night and she was completely fascinated by the whole growing-up-in-Saudi thing. A little later, as she was hopping into bed, she turned around and said "You know that film was about freedom and the right of men and women to do what they want to do without stopping them" - complete with tiny fists drawn up to her chin and a very serious look on her face.
I can't remember the first time I came across the notion of human rights, but it wasn't in primary school.0 -
She asked if that stat was down to the condom itself or the misuse of them and the school priest who was present told her to be quiet.
Do you think it's possible they might have noted an element of adversariality to her questions, and decided it might be better not to engage?she wanted to make them look like idiots. Unfortunately the school is totally complicit in this rubbish...what kind of talk doesn't even allow students to ask questions.
Without in any way advocating on behalf of Pure In Heart, I suspect if I were giving a talk and someone wanted to make me look like an idiot, I might want them to be quiet.0 -
Do you think it's possible they might have noted an element of adversariality to her questions, and decided it might be better not to engage?
Without in any way advocating on behalf of Pure In Heart, I suspect if I were giving a talk and someone wanted to make me look like an idiot, I might want them to be quiet.
You'd only look like an idiot if what you were espousing was either rubbish or your knowledge of it was lacking. Either way discourse should always be encouraged rather than silenced.0 -
PIH came to my daughters school two weeks ago. We were given a consent form in advance and I didn't want her to go but she insisted she was there to call them out on their claims. It was a 2hr talk with a mix of TY and 5th year boys and girls.
Some of the things they came out with were telling anyone who had issues with their sexuality to contact their priest, telling girls that boys don't want to settle down with a woman who is too intelligent and a discussion about the way girls dress that sounded very close to victim blaming those subject to sexual assaults.
I complained to the school and managed to get a call back from the principal who I was very surprised allowed these people into the school, he's a fairly young guy and seems to have an open mind but he told me it was out of his control. The school is part of the Le Cheile trust and its they who decide who goes in and talks to the students, the principal has no say.
I'm furious these people are allowed to just walk in and come out with this ****e...the sooner we have a mass network of ET second level schools the better. :mad:
Why ET schools? Why not schools that teach subjects that have a basis in reality and leave religious instruction to churches.0 -
Cantremember wrote: »Why ET schools? Why not schools that teach subjects that have a basis in reality and leave religious instruction to churches.
Cause ET seem to be leading the way in terms of non religious education. Anything of a similar model is fine.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cantremember wrote: »Why ET schools? Why not schools that teach subjects that have a basis in reality and leave religious instruction to churches.
ET schools seem to be about the closest one can get to that within the current legislation, as I understand it. Why not more legislation in this area? Why not indeed.
(Though personally, I'd rather see a massive rollout of ET schools, soonest, than that ending up being unduly delayed by a good-the-enemy-of-best attempt to start all over again from scratch with another entity, which is bound to also worsen the "critical mass" problem. Then further reform ET schools (to the reduce the in-school "invisible fairy stuff", as one ET school board member calls it) when that really is the most pressing remaining issue.)0 -
Without in any way advocating on behalf of Pure In Heart, I suspect if I were giving a talk and someone wanted to make me look like an idiot, I might want them to be quiet.
If you were giving a talk in a state-funded school, pocketing a "donation" funded/cross-subsidised by said state, would you further feel that your "want" along these lines would trump the right of the people supposedly being educated in this entire process to engage with what you're saying. Especially if, as has been repeatedly allegedly, you were like the people here, and "spinning" the facts to the point of sheer mendacity.0 -
Do you think it's possible they might have noted an element of adversariality to her questions, and decided it might be better not to engage?
Without in any way advocating on behalf of Pure In Heart, I suspect if I were giving a talk and someone wanted to make me look like an idiot, I might want them to be quiet.
She didn't go in to derail the talk, she just wanted to show how flawed their stats were. Taking information re the effectiveness of a condom when the user is drunk or on drugs and then implying that is the rate in all situations is dangerous scaremongering. Asking someone to clarify their statistics is fair enough, they stand over those figures so they should be prepared to answer questions on them.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,224 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16970
I've already outlined the sex education I had in school in earlier parts of this thread. I left school 13 years ago and it's quite concerning to hear things may have only gotten worse. It sounds like I was quite fortunate in comparison to some of the tripe being pushed now.
As for a priest telling someone to be quiet, that's a standard little old Ireland intimidation tactic. Saw it in the school and scouts. Don't ask questions, just STFU and tow the line.
When I was doing my Master's, one of my essays was partly about people with intellectual disability (ID) and sex. As you can imagine, this is a tricky area in terms of presenting information to this population, and in relation to consent. I can only imagine what certain lobby groups would say about this. Personally, I don't really see an issue with people with ID receiving sex education provided it is appropriate to their circumstances.
Here's a bit of what I wrote (cringe):People with ID may face a number of challenges with respect to sexual relationships. Some have expressed how their sexual relationships have resulted in negative reactions from family members; including experiencing feelings of humiliation and being subject to vigilance and sterilisation (Bjarnason, 2002; Knox and Hickson, 2001; Shah and Priestley, 2010). People with ID may have limited sexual knowledge; reasons underlying this include a lack of information and less access to sex education resources and materials (McCabe, 1999; Galea, et al., 2004; Shah and Priestley, 2010). In the U.S., the promotion of an abstinence-only perspective concerning youth sexuality, and a failure to provide adequate information, can disadvantage disabled teenagers (Fine and McClelland, 2006). In Ireland, relationship and sexuality education (RSE) for people with ID has been somewhat neglected (Allen and Seery, 2006). Reasons underpinning this problem include a lack of staff training, inadequate training policies and the non-delivery of RSE to people with ID (Allen and Seery, 2006). Presently, in Ireland, there is no RSE programme for young people with an ID attending school (Foley and Kelly, 2009). In a care environment, staff can be more willing to discuss relationships and sexuality, and more likely than family carers to emphasise issues such as inadequate staff training as a barrier to discussion (Evans, et al., 2009). Family members such as parents can hold more conservative attitudes or experience discomfort regarding the relationship and sexual experiences of their adult children with ID (Cuskelly and Bryde, 2004; Healy, et al., 2009). As a consequence, some people with ID may not or are reluctant to discuss personal relationships with their families (Healy, et al., 2009). Clearly, then, disabled people, including people with ID, can face a range of challenges with respect to adult or sexual relationships. As with certain leisure activities, people with ID may be shielded from having access to certain information and are at a disadvantage compared to non-disabled peers. In Ireland, for example, it appears that education, guidance and support concerning sexual relationships for people with ID is notably limited.Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.
CMod: Entertainment
0 -
What I'm interested in is how the meme of Catholicism benefits from sexual abstinence. There has to be something in it, for it. Simple thought experiments can come up with a number of ideas on that front, hypotheses so to speak. To prove or disprove any of them would require large scale socio-psychological experiments that no government would have either the desire or interest to fund but there absolutely has to be something in it for the church beyond any perceived "goodness" from abstaining from the completely natural act of sexual intercourse, STD's and unwanted pregnancies aside because their historical contraception policies, and especially in Africa these days make a mockery of any claims to the contrary about those issues.
One idea might be that religious doctrine can't survive outside the realm of a 2-parent stable believing family, so if we imagine a hypothetical society where only believing families procreated, then obviously the religion would stand a much better chance of survival. Obviously in reality not only believing families will procreate but if only families of any kind procreated, then by logical mutual inclusion it would still statistically increase the chances of believing families surviving as a unit through the generations, thus retaining, or at the very least reducing the loss of the catholic market share of believers. So in essence they would rather that even believers didn't procreate if it's not within the realm of a 2-parent stable family and of course that non-believers wouldn't procreate at all.
Is that my rigid belief?....no not at all but I think it's a rational enough idea and I'd love to hear what anyone else has to offer on that front.0 -
Bloe Joggs wrote: »What I'm interested in is how the meme of Catholicism benefits from sexual abstinence. There has to be something in it, for it. Simple thought experiments can come up with a number of ideas on that front, hypotheses so to speak. To prove or disprove any of them would require large scale socio-psychological experiments that no government would have either the desire or interest to fund but there absolutely has to be something in it for the church beyond any perceived "goodness" from abstaining from the completely natural act of sexual intercourse, STD's and unwanted pregnancies aside because their historical contraception policies, and especially in Africa these days make a mockery of any claims to the contrary about those issues.
One idea might be that religious doctrine can't survive outside the realm of a 2-parent stable believing family, so if we imagine a hypothetical society where only believing families procreated, then obviously the religion would stand a much better chance of survival. Obviously in reality not only believing families will procreate but if only families of any kind procreated, then by logical mutual inclusion it would still statistically increase the chances of believing families surviving as a unit through the generations, thus retaining, or at the very least reducing the loss of the catholic market share of believers. So in essence they would rather that even believers didn't procreate if it's not within the realm of a 2-parent stable family and of course that non-believers wouldn't procreate at all.
Is that my rigid belief?....no not at all but I think it's a rational enough idea and I'd love to hear what anyone else has to offer on that front.
It might just be me being cynical but the fact that abstinent only education yields higher rates of unprotected sex and teenage parents plays right into the hands of the religious institutions driving the policies.
Having a child early reduces educational and income achieving thresholds, both of which have correlaries in the rates of religiosity. The more educated you are, the less religious you are likely to be, and the more wealthy you are, the less likely you are to be relying on the kind of aid and support that too often national governments are happy to see religious groups give out on their behalf.
Most of the groups and organizations pushing abstinence sex education would be quite happy if more of the population was poor and ill-educated and as a consequence more religious than the current trend of less fulfilling those criteria.
Caveat: I'm not saying if you're (relatively) poor and (relatively) less educated, that you're going to be religious. I'm both. :P But the correlaries are there.0 -
Sulla Felix wrote: »It might just be me being cynical but the fact that abstinent only education yields higher rates of unprotected sex and teenage parents plays right into the hands of the religious institutions driving the policies.
Having a child early reduces educational and income achieving thresholds, both of which have correlaries in the rates of religiosity. The more educated you are, the less religious you are likely to be, and the more wealthy you are, the less likely you are to be relying on the kind of aid and support that too often national governments are happy to see religious groups give out on their behalf.
Most of the groups and organizations pushing abstinence sex education would be quite happy if more of the population was poor and ill-educated and as a consequence more religious than the current trend of less fulfilling those criteria.
Caveat: I'm not saying if you're (relatively) poor and (relatively) less educated, that you're going to be religious. I'm both. :P But the correlaries are there.
That makes a lot of sense. Though it would seem to apply more to poor areas overseas than in an Ireland/UK sense. Like I wouldn't describe your average Irish or British teenage parental unit as particularly religious these days but in the past, with large families, more kids meant less money to spend on education. It could be that that catholic machine hasn't yet caught up with modern realities.0 -
Well, most of what I've read relates to America and it certainly applies there quite well.Bloe Joggs wrote: »That makes a lot of sense. Though it would seem to apply more to poor areas overseas than in an Ireland/UK sense. Like I wouldn't describe your average Irish or British teenage parental unit as particularly religious these days but in the past, with large families, more kids meant less money to spend on education. It could be that that catholic machine hasn't yet caught up with modern realities.
While the churches in Ireland and the UK aren't capitalizing on it, there's all forms the woo can take to prey on the less resilient. Doing the lottery is a kind of form of wishy washy wishful thinking. You'll find horoscopes in the cheap tv/chat rags and the redtops more than in quality printed media etc.0 -
Cantremember wrote: »How sad that the "pure in heart" of the beatitudes is reduced to sexual abstinence. What a negative and deplorable view of human sexuality.
Given the message that the beatitudes convey, I think it is perfectly appropriate that one of them is appropriated by this odious little group of *****s.0 -
Oh, I think you know that's not true. Knowledgeable, capable people have been made to look like idiots by others who set out to trap them or deliberately make them look idiotic; politicians regularly get ambushed by media and are made to look like idiots. Sometimes they are idiots, sometimes they're not. If you're placed in an unexpectedly adversarial situation, it's easy enough to make a mistake.gaynorvader wrote: »You'd only look like an idiot if what you were espousing was either rubbish or your knowledge of it was lacking.
Certainly discourse should be encouraged, but as for always, well, I hope you never attend a talk I'm giving. I prefer questions at the end, and like many public speakers, feel anyone heckling in the course of my presentation is an interruption. There is a time and a place; lectures are where students listen, debate/ question time is where students debate and question. Of course, the question may have been asked at the appropriate time, and in an appropriate fashion; but that information wasn't given to us.gaynorvader wrote: »Either way discourse should always be encouraged rather than silenced.
Nope, but I might feel that I should be afforded the opportunity to complete the talk I was invited to give without interruption from someone who was deliberately there to try and make me look like an idiot. Whilst I personally would want to engage with students having completed my talk, I'd certainly be wary of engaging with someone who appeared to have attended with the sole purpose of ambushing me, in the belief that my talk was mendacious. Especially if they hadn't waited to hear the talk before deciding it was mendacious.alaimacerc wrote: »If you were giving a talk in a state-funded school, pocketing a "donation" funded/cross-subsidised by said state, would you further feel that your "want" along these lines would trump the right of the people supposedly being educated in this entire process to engage with what you're saying. Especially if, as has been repeatedly allegedly, you were like the people here, and "spinning" the facts to the point of sheer mendacity.
You specifically said that she told you in advance that she wanted to attend in order to make them look like idiots. If she wasn't intending to derail the talk, can you tell us did she wait until the talk was finished and questions were called for? I get that their stats are so flawed as not to actually be stats at all, and that your daughter had prepared an argument on that basis. Perhaps she was enthusiastic to get her rebuttal across and jumped the gun, occasioning the priest to tell her to be quiet whilst the talk was still being given? In those circumstances for instance, asking a student to be quiet doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Even the use of the word 'tell' makes me wonder; are you sure he didn't use the word 'please'? Might 'ask' be an appropriate substitute? Obviously we weren't there, but I'd be a little wary of pejorative words without knowing the facts; hence why I ask.She didn't go in to derail the talk, she just wanted to show how flawed their stats were. Taking information re the effectiveness of a condom when the user is drunk or on drugs and then implying that is the rate in all situations is dangerous scaremongering. Asking someone to clarify their statistics is fair enough, they stand over those figures so they should be prepared to answer questions on them.
Perhaps you are certain; perhaps your daughter asked her question respectfully, in a reasonable fashion, at the appropriate time, and all the apparent outrage is entirely justified because PiH were overbearing and obnoxious (presuming the priest was one of the PiH presenters?).0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh, I think you know that's not true. Knowledgeable, capable people have been made to look like idiots by others who set out to trap them or deliberately make them look idiotic; politicians regularly get ambushed by media and are made to look like idiots. Sometimes they are idiots, sometimes they're not. If you're placed in an unexpectedly adversarial situation, it's easy enough to make a mistake.
I would argue that if you are knowledgeable enough, you'll be able to explain yourself. I suppose you could be made to look like an idiot to other unknowledgeable people, but I think that'd be more on them than on you.Certainly discourse should be encouraged, but as for always, well, I hope you never attend a talk I'm giving. I prefer questions at the end, and like many public speakers, feel anyone heckling in the course of my presentation is an interruption. There is a time and a place; lectures are where students listen, debate/ question time is where students debate and question. Of course, the question may have been asked at the appropriate time, and in an appropriate fashion; but that information wasn't given to us. {...}
Discourse should always be encouraged, I do agree that interrupting is not on, however if you make it clear from the outset that you will have a question time at the end, you are encouraging discourse. As for not knowing something, a simple admission of ignorance prevents one from looking the fool in most situations.0 -
And therefore, PiH should be given an opportunity, at what's in effect public expense, and apparently against the wishes of educational professionals, to not merely force young minds to listen to their fanciful guff, but be protected against any possibility of it looking like the fanciful guff that it is? Should atheists, climate-change deniers, creationists, and flat-earthers all be heard on this same basis? Can you see how that looks to everyone else like pretty extreme bias in favour of what you've evidently predetermined to be the sought outcome?Oh, I think you know that's not true. Knowledgeable, capable people have been made to look like idiots by others who set out to trap them or deliberately make them look idiotic; politicians regularly get ambushed by media and are made to look like idiots. Sometimes they are idiots, sometimes they're not. If you're placed in an unexpectedly adversarial situation, it's easy enough to make a mistake.
I think that would make most of us!Certainly discourse should be encouraged, but as for always, well, I hope you never attend a talk I'm giving.
I think it's rather far-fetched to characterise PiH events as "public speaking" (if only it were in any sense actually public!) or "lectures". They're evidently stunt-filled interactions with small groups. The "hold questions to the end, please" bit is sometimes appropriate in very formal settings, in front of very large groups, or where time is very tightly constrained. People pulling it in circumstances which are none of these looks, at the very best, like a sign of the speaker's exaggerated self-importance. In the PiH case, it would look remarkably like simple student-silencing. (If requested/insisted on by them: it's admittedly not very clear in the reported case if the intercepting ecclesiastic was acting at their wish, or "doing a solo run".)I prefer questions at the end, and like many public speakers, feel anyone heckling in the course of my presentation is an interruption. There is a time and a place; lectures are where students listen, debate/ question time is where students debate and question.Whilst I personally would want to engage with students having completed my talk, I'd certainly be wary of engaging with someone who appeared to have attended with the sole purpose of ambushing me, in the belief that my talk was mendacious. Especially if they hadn't waited to hear the talk before deciding it was mendacious.
I think that after the speaker has uttered the individual apparent mendacity (or own poor state of knowledge, let's be somewhat fair as to intent), their alleged right to a listener cooling-off period is very much running down the clock.You specifically said that she told you in advance that she wanted to attend in order to make them look like idiots. If she wasn't intending to derail the talk, can you tell us did she wait until the talk was finished and questions were called for?
There's a principle in contract law, I'm told, that ambiguity be construed to the benefit of the non-drafting party. PiH are the people pulling the cloak-and-dagger stunts; I'm disinclined to proceed on the basis that they're the people whose accounts are to be trusted.0 -
Bloe Joggs wrote: »What I'm interested in is how the meme of Catholicism benefits from sexual abstinence. There has to be something in it, for it.
Not really necessarily true. It's not true that the RCC has to be "evolutionarily optimally fit" in all key respects; just moreso than its various rivals (to whatever degree is necessary to explain their various prevalences). So some parts of the "meme" may be piggybacking on others, and their transmission essentially accidental. (As to which is which, I hardly dare speculate.)0 -
I think you're arguing against a point you presume I've made without me making it? What is the sought outcome of what event that you think I've predetermined? And what does it have to do with how easy it is to make a smart person look like an idiot?alaimacerc wrote: »And therefore, PiH should be given an opportunity, at what's in effect public expense, and apparently against the wishes of educational professionals, to not merely force young minds to listen to their fanciful guff, but be protected against any possibility of it looking like the fanciful guff that it is? Should atheists, climate-change deniers, creationists, and flat-earthers all be heard on this same basis? Can you see how that looks to everyone else like pretty extreme bias in favour of what you've evidently predetermined to be the sought outcome?
Interesting. I don't believe I've ever attended a lecture or talk where questions were encouraged during the course of the presentation, excepting one to ones. So in my experience, it's almost always appropriate. Perhaps my experience is singular.alaimacerc wrote: »The "hold questions to the end, please" bit is sometimes appropriate in very formal settings, in front of very large groups, or where time is very tightly constrained. People pulling it in circumstances which are none of these looks, at the very best, like a sign of the speaker's exaggerated self-importance.
Do you think then, since you single out the PiH case, you're holding them to a different standard?alaimacerc wrote: »In the PiH case, it would look remarkably like simple student-silencing.
So when you attend a lecture and hear something you don't like, you feel entitled to reduce the speakers time as a result? That seems unusual.alaimacerc wrote: »I think that after the speaker has uttered the individual apparent mendacity (or own poor state of knowledge, let's be somewhat fair as to intent), their alleged right to a listener cooling-off period is very much running down the clock.
Since we haven't heard either account, I don't think we need worry who's drafting or disadvantaged by a contract. But from the second hand account, we are assured that one party deliberately attended the meeting intending to cause harm to the reputation of the other party, so if we're playing legal style discussion I would submit the second party acted only in self defense, on foot of provocation, as witnesses have shown the intent of the first party was an assault from the outset. Yer honour.alaimacerc wrote: »There's a principle in contract law, I'm told, that ambiguity be construed to the benefit of the non-drafting party. PiH are the people pulling the cloak-and-dagger stunts; I'm disinclined to proceed on the basis that they're the people whose accounts are to be trusted.0 -
You're clearly at liberty to point out where I "presume" in error.I think you're arguing against a point you presume I've made without me making it?
Fairly limited, I'd say, at any rate. And as I already pointed out, comparing an in-class farrago where you're sellotaping YAs together and having them roll fuzzy dice to a "lecture" is less than accurate.Interesting. I don't believe I've ever attended a lecture or talk where questions were encouraged during the course of the presentation, excepting one to ones. So in my experience, it's almost always appropriate. Perhaps my experience is singular.
Have you noticed the thread you're posting in? PiH aren't being "singled out", they are the topic. The logical error here is generalising to some broader category (that this one isn't a member of, by any sensible judgement, come to that), making sweeping statements about that, and then presenting it as if applicable to the case we started with.Do you think then, since you single out the PiH case, you're holding them to a different standard?
The PiH are falling well short of any applicable standard that they might reasonably be held to. The exceptionalism is very much cutting the other way here.
This seems like a "creative" rephrasing of what I said, to put it as kindly as possible. PiH don't say they wangle invites on the basis of uninterrupted filibustering and propagandising time. They say they give "interactive informative presentations and engaging workshops". Or at we at this point dispensing entirely with giving any credence to what they themselves say, and just defending them on the basis of what they might have been hypothetically doing otherwise?So when you attend a lecture and hear something you don't like, you feel entitled to reduce the speakers time as a result? That seems unusual.Since we haven't heard either account, I don't think we need worry who's drafting or disadvantaged by a contract.
We've heard numerous accounts of various individual PiH farragos. Your riffing on the "hearsay rule" isn't especially pertinent. And we've heard the students' accounts poo-poo'd by PiH apologists essentially saying that they're not to be trusted, and it's none of anyone else's beeswax what's actually being said in these "talks". I think who's being disadvantage by the "terms" is both very clear, and very material.0 -
I am aren't I? But since I've already asked you what is the sought outcome of what event that you think I've predetermined, and what does it have to do with how easy it is to make a smart person look like an idiot, you could actually answer the question and tell us what your presumption actually is?alaimacerc wrote: »You're clearly at liberty to point out where I "presume" in error.
Maybe, though I suspect I've more years of education under my belt than most posters. Regardless, your opinion of the event as a farrago may make it seem far from a formal event, but since it took place in a school setting is it inappropriate to think most attendees assumed a level of decorum was required?alaimacerc wrote: »Fairly limited, I'd say, at any rate. And as I already pointed out, comparing an in-class farrago where you're sellotaping YAs together and having them roll fuzzy dice to a "lecture" is less than accurate.
Just because they're the subject of discussion doesn't mean they should be held to a different standard though. Saying in the PiH case it's student silencing, but in other cases it's pomposity is unfair; you've presented no objective difference between the two.alaimacerc wrote: »Have you noticed the thread you're posting in? PiH aren't being "singled out", they are the topic. The logical error here is generalising to some broader category (that this one isn't a member of, by any sensible judgement, come to that), making sweeping statements about that, and then presenting it as if applicable to the case we started with.
How do you know? You have only a second hand account of a portion of an exchange with a student to go on. They could have performed in an utterly professional and unreproachable manner in the face of unrestrained barracking for all you know; the full facts have not been presented.alaimacerc wrote: »The PiH are falling well short of any applicable standard that they might reasonably be held to. The exceptionalism is very much cutting the other way here.
You said "after the speaker has uttered the individual apparent mendacity their alleged right to a listener cooling-off period is very much running down the clock".alaimacerc wrote: »This seems like a "creative" rephrasing of what I said, to put it as kindly as possible.
Speaker has uttered the individual apparent mendacity; speaker says something you disagree with?
Listener cooling off period; period in which the speaker may continue without interruption?
Running down the clock; reducing the time available?
If I misread your phrasing, feel free to make your statement more directly, but I don't think it's too creative to read that as when you attend a lecture and hear something you don't like, you feel entitled to reduce the speakers time as a result.
Does anyone? Or are we again to hold PiH to a different standard?alaimacerc wrote: »PiH don't say they wangle invites on the basis of uninterrupted filibustering and propagandising time.
I'd say it would colour the discussion if they themselves said they were engaged in an interactive informative presentation and engaging workshop, and were encouraging questions at the time. Have they said that? Has our second hand account said that? Or are you assuming that's what they were doing because the literature you've read said that's something they do?alaimacerc wrote: »They say they give "interactive informative presentations and engaging workshops". Or at we at this point dispensing entirely with giving any credence to what they themselves say, and just defending them on the basis of what they might have been hypothetically doing otherwise?
But contract law is? Is pertinent to be defined by what suits your argument?alaimacerc wrote: »We've heard numerous accounts of various individual PiH farragos. Your riffing on the "hearsay rule" isn't especially pertinent.
Have we heard any students' accounts poo-poo'd by PiH apologists essentially saying that they're not to be trusted, and it's none of anyone else's beeswax what's actually being said in these "talks" in this case? Or are we to judge this on the merits of a different event?alaimacerc wrote: »And we've heard the students' accounts poo-poo'd by PiH apologists essentially saying that they're not to be trusted, and it's none of anyone else's beeswax what's actually being said in these "talks".
If you think there are contract terms placing a party at a disadvantage here, perhaps you should present the contract for our consideration?alaimacerc wrote: »I think who's being disadvantage by the "terms" is both very clear, and very material.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,224 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 16970
-
Absolutely disgusting. Let's get to slut-shamer-shaming.0
-
Lols at KMiddy being used as an example of pure in heart given the fact her and Will lived together before marriage and there are rumours of an abortion.
This modesty crap is doing the rounds in USA high schools from.where it's safe to assume this crowd get their materials. So we should judge people based on how they look then, seems to be the message0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Pure-In-Heart-Ireland/615275301940114?sk=info
Well they're back.
Still haven't answered any of my queries or questions though.0
Advertisement