Posted on 12/02/2004 3:56:16 PM PST by reportgirl73
GRAND ISLAND, N.Y. (AP) - An elementary school bus driver was fired after sharing a statistic she had read about embryonic stem cell research with students, then encouraging them to tell their parents about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
...as you imply...(syntax error, how did it make it past the compiler?)
Oh, I don't think so. If anything, you are the one imposing context on the situation, by attempting to draw a completely arbitrary line between facts you like, and facts you don't like. I submit that for bus drivers to engage in such behavior is wrong, period, regardless of context, whereas you have managed to rediscover the joys of situational ethics by claiming that facts X, Y, and Z - being good God-fearing conservative facts, of course - are somehow acceptable on the schoolbus, as opposed to facts A, B, and C - dirty commie homo hippy facts, we presume - which are unacceptable. I certainly understand why you want to pretend that you've got some sort of firm moral North Star guiding your posts, but the reality is, you don't, and everyone can see that.
Now you are even calling people on your own side of the arguments names. Dianna may have been mistaken when she insisted that either the parents or the state have control over what their kids are exposed to, and she did make it very clear there was no other possible alternatives...and she therefore concluded the right should go to the parents.
When all else fails, you'll resort to silly semantic games. You have the right to get married. Is that right absolute? Of course not - try marrying your pet fish, and you'll be disabused rather quickly of the notion that having the right to do something is the same as that right being absolute. You argue against a point that no one has made, and that is the very dictionary definition of strawman argumentation, whether you care to admit it or not.
And then your chance to get your revenge in the "gotcha" contest...and man, oh man you blew it.
See, there's your problem. Yours truly is discussing the issue at hand, and finding himself squaring off against a dillettante who has nothing to offer but rhetorical gimmicks and half-baked attempts to score "gotcha" points. Well, okay - you just go ahead and throw in a bit of witty repartee as you see fit. In the mean time, the adults will be over there having a serious discussion about serious issues. Someday you can get the stamp that says "Valid Only When Accompanied By An Adult!" removed from your freeper card, and join us thereafter.
I'm rewording to make sure I haven't misunderstood you. Your argument seems to be that, (1) since embryonic stem cell research is wrong, the bus driver was justified in discussing it with small children, (2) complaints about said discussion are based on immorality, and (3), since the bus driver was not warned about having political discussions with the children, she should not be fired.
Have I summarized/reworded correctly?
If an individual does not wish to adhere to the policies set forth by an employer, that individual should find employment elsewhere. At least, that is what conservative grown ups do. Liberal whiners tend to expect the employer to bend to their wishes.
So, it would seem that you are sometimes a liberal whiner.
LOL! What was that before about me attacking a straw man? Again your side is reduced to desperately concocting more absolute principles under which your viewpoint on a specific matter is be correct (Thou shall not talk to the Children about anything that might conceivably upset even unreasonable parents--from The lost Bus Driving tablet Moses accidently dropped in Mel Brook's history of the World)
...facts X, Y, and Z - being good God-fearing conservative facts...
LOL again. Are there any Bible versus concerning stem cell research that Mrs Mayor was using in her preaching? I can just imagine it now: "Don't go believing in Satan's lies, as the prophet Gibson in the book of Medical Efficacy saw in a vision..."
Now I don't want to make you feel like I'm attacking a strawman, but your last rant seems to imply that it is an absolute moral princible that bus drivers say nothing to children, and any disagreement reveals a complete lack of moral princibles.
Moreover, its dissapointed me that you can't ackonollege that there is a kind of gottcha game going on. This is normal among mortals (even adults), and especially true among men. In my experience, if you don't identify the emotions that have inspired such banter (as when you accused me of being off my medication) within yourself, then it is difficult for you to seperate them from your critical thinking.
At this sad point, I honestly think you are so twisted up, that I feel more sorry for you then anything. Which sounds a bit self serving (and it is a bit). I know I've got your goat, and although I am ready to rip apart more arguments, I would really appreciate some that are a little more challenging.
Thank you! Finally a little logic from the other side! This is a fairly good point, which I seriously considered myself (ages ago when this thread started). I tip my hat.
But, it doesn't quite wash with me. It would if the entity were private (though I still maintain there should be some limits on policies in private institutions, this would not be one of them), or it even would if local schools were run like a private company.
But I submit that at the core of this princible is the idea of a fair and competitive market. Or at least the semblance of one. In a free market institution the people ultimatly in charge must answer to the consumer base as a whole. If they do not, they go out of buisness. In the government schools however, there is no such control, and thus they must be governed by a larger system of accountability, namely those who vote. Thus it is up to all of us to decide what is reasonable, and apply it in the voting booth. However, as most Freepers are aware of, this system is currently not working because of left wing legal terrorism which intimidates government schools about such matters. Face it, the bus driver was probably canned because they were afraid of a law suit, not because they were motivated to serve the genral public interest.
1) since embryonic stem cell research is wrong, the bus driver was justified in discussing it with small children,
It would be silly to use such a premise, as most on your side probably assumed I have done. Reasonable people can disagree on such an issue. Again thank you for giving me the chance to emphasis that my arguments don't use such a flawed premise.
(2) complaints about said discussion are based on immorality
This doesn't make any kind of sense to me. What does a discussion based on immorality mean (other then trying to seduce a married person or the like). I doubt whatever you meant by this is part of my argument...but since I'm not entirely sure...
(3) Since the bus driver was not warned about having political discussions with the children, she should not be fired.
My conclusion is even stronger then that. I maintain that the bus driver did nothing wrong. I think this fairly summarizes MEGoody's position, who I'm still debating.
I've summarized my argument before on this thread, but since neither of us wants to dig through 500+ posts, I will do so once more (only the high points now):
The schools should serve to educate rather then indoctrinate our children. A minority of parents, lawyers, and teachers would prefer to indoctrinate rather then teach. This latter group scares the bleep out of schoool boards. Thus the schools are evolving into a place of indoctrination, to such an extent, that neutral educational facts are now being suppressed.
The bus driver was fired for being too educational by those who either wish to indoctrinate or are fearful of litigation by those that wish to indoctrinate the children.
Now I'm sure you may suspect some flaws (this is only a summary). Particularly my assertion that the bus drivers comments were neutral educational facts. I have supported this assertion quite well in this thread, and would like the opportunity to reiterate.
Another possible flaw was recently raised by MEGoody, but I think I dealt with it well in my last post.
By the way, I have yet to see a coherent argument supporting the bus driver being fired. I've been ripping them apart for breakfast.
"too educational" = opinion
"those who wish to indoctrinate" = impuning motives and making assumptions
"are fearful of litigation" = impugning motives, undocumented assumption
("too educational" = opinion) = opinion
(("too educational" = opinion) = opinion) = opinion
A redundant loop of silliness.
"just your opinion" = lazy thinker with weaker opinion
Interesting strategy.
I have defined the difference between educating and indoctrinating as fairly as I could earlier (this is after all a summary). Although one must be careful when trying to descern motive, but such assertions are neccesary in understanding the world around us. If I have interpreted motives incorrectly, please show me how.
"making assumptions" is neccesary for all critical thought (at least for mortals, God doesn't need to). If you don't have to make assumptions in your arguments, then please enlighten me.
"undocumented assumption"? You have got to be kidding. The context is genral, so it is reasonable that such documentations are myriad. But why is this even relevant?
The idea of an argument is that you proceed from certain premises or assumptions to a conclusion. If you think one of my premises is incorrect, let me know. If you a flaw in the logic of deducting the conclusion from the premises, let me know.
Merely identifying assumptions is silly unless you actually challenge them.
Shall I now conclude you are wrong simply because this is your opinion? I am not attacking you, and do not want you to be defensive, so you need not "impune" my "motives".
I was demonstrating that identifying a premise as an opinion does not constitute a logical flaw. I do not want you to feel defensive, it is a common mistake, but I am not going to play dumb to protect your feelings either.
No, making assumptions is worthless unless you can prove you are correct.
But you knew that.
LOL
Please don't get defensive (hey I'm starting to get defensive worried about you being defensive), but that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard (read actually).
You have really floored me with that one, but then I'm assuming you are not all knowing. Perhaps I'm wrong, but in my miserable existence I have to make assumptions all the time.
OK, I think it is safe to assume you don't have any constructive criticism for me, and I no longer feel like tutoring you in logic. Feel free to assume anything you like about my motives and character, but I really hope there are no hard feelings.
ROFLMAO!!!
Thank you, I needed a good laugh.
Here let me refresh your memory, since it appears to be something you're prone to, a sort of rhetorical tic, if you will:
(Thou shall not talk to the Children about anything that might conceivably upset even unreasonable parents--from The lost Bus Driving tablet Moses accidently dropped in Mel Brook's history of the World)
Who said that? Did I say that? Of course not - you just made it up. What I did say is that, contrary to your apparent delusion, AndyTheBear does not get to define "reasonable" or "unreasonable" objections for society at large, or parents in general. Not content to delegate authority over the nation's children to mere substitute school bus drivers, Andy will thoughtfully step up to the plate and take authority for determining how and when subjects of interest to millions will be introduced by his determination that any objection he doesn't care for is unreasonable. Should we even be remotely surprised that those who happen to agree with Andy are ipso facto "reasonable"? Not really.
Now I don't want to make you feel like I'm attacking a strawman, but your last rant seems to imply that it is an absolute moral princible that bus drivers say nothing to children, and any disagreement reveals a complete lack of moral princibles.
It "seems to imply", does it? And I am responsible for your fevered imaginings how, exactly?
Moreover, its dissapointed me that you can't ackonollege that there is a kind of gottcha game going on.
LOL. As much as I hate to disappoint people, I'll manage to soldier on somehow, I'm sure. I am sorry that you find yourself at a loss as to how exactly to proceed here, but I am content to continue to argue substantial issues, rather than grasping the low-hanging fruit of pointing out that you don't know what "ursine" means, or that you can't consistently spell "gotcha" - or "disappointed", "acknowledge", and "principles", for that matter. I realize that this must put something of a crimp in your argumentative style, such as it is, not being able to turn this into a bout of petty, personal bickering, but perhaps someday you'll come to see some virtue in thoughtfulness and circumspection, rather than constantly shooting for the role of class clown. Perhaps not. If you're happy to run around trying to score cheap rhetorical points, and then high-fiving your new friend as though you've said something substantive, then I'm perfectly happy to let you. Makes my job here that much easier, in the end.
At this sad point, I honestly think you are so twisted up, that I feel more sorry for you then anything.
In my experience, it's wise to avoid the temptation of imputing emotions or motives to those who disagree with you - it smacks of projection. Rest assured, when I sign off here, I'll forget all about you. Hopefully, you can say the same about me, but if not, it'll do you good to try - fewer ulcers that way.
I know I've got your goat, and although I am ready to rip apart more arguments, I would really appreciate some that are a little more challenging.
Why deploy my "A" game? There's nothing you've presented to seriously argue against. If you can find it in yourself to present a serious argument, one a little lighter on self-serving definitions, followed by declarations of victory and touchdown dances, yet blessedly unencumbered by any sort of reasoning process, I'll be around.
Apologize ? LOL!
It's not my fault she's stupid. She is the one that needs to apologize.
Oh my gosh, Andy, learn to read. I've been posting about the policies thing all along.
"Face it, the bus driver was probably canned because they were afraid of a law suit, not because they were motivated to serve the general public interest."
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the background. Is there a standing policy? Was this driver aware of the policy? I don't know.
I do know that, unless there IS a standing policy AND unless the driver had been warned previously, firing was too harsh. Just a reminder of the policy would have sufficed.
Now, unless you think an employee shouldn't even be reminded of a policy they have violated, I can't really think of anything else we have to say to one another. . .unless you just want to be patronizing for no particular reason again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.