punished for beliefs in public school?

[outhouse]

http://ils.unc.edu/~losee/b5/node9.html

A belief that is true but for which we have no evidence cannot be described as knowledge

we can be certain that ``knowledge is not, or is not merely, justified true belief"

 

[Unification]

See now those are reasonable hypotheticals. The problem is, did the teacher speak with the boy about his religious beliefs. And then separate him. I can understand that the teacher may have had the child not sit by children that he was bothering if the teacher believed this boy was instigating and initiating the conflict. But, if the teacher questioned the boy about religion as is alleged, then any subsequent action will appear colored by that interrogation.

I don't imagine that teachers will punish children based on their beliefs, but I do understand that it is possible. But even giving the teacher the benefit of doubt, her alleged actions, if true, make it nearly impossible to exonerate her. So, suppose the boy was continuing to distress the children by bringing up the issue and making assertions regarding God. What is the professional and ethical way to handle this?

Very much agree. It would be a fickle situation. At what point would casual conversation be deemed or not deemed okay? The asking of a student if they believe in God and if they go to church would then become secondary. I think that it would be best for all teachers of students from elementary through high school to be trained to not even mention the word "God," "religion," or "church" with any conversation with students, even casually, or the asking of any questions. Although, if bullying were the grounds of discipline, would then, a teacher have the responsibility to interrogate and ask questions about that nature as to the "cause" of the bullying with the students involved, in your opinion? Regardless, the teacher will likely be removed from at least that school even if discipline was due to bullying. I'd dislike anyone to lose their career completely over that if that were the case.

I also have a difficult time believing a girl would cry over a simple comment of "I don't believe in God and I don't go to church" unless there were more words, or that a teacher would be crazy enough to discipline based off of belief, but as you've said.. It's possible and all of the evidence needs brought to light initially. If the allegations are all true, the teacher should definitely be stripped of her license and ability to teach any students in my opinion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I also have a difficult time believing a girl would cry over a simple comment of "I don't believe in God and I don't go to church"

I have seen fully grown adults become upset when someone says they don't believe in god. Indiana is very much a state where recognition and respect for religious diversity is the exception, prayer before public meetings is not uncommon, Christian billboards are abundant, it is pretty much assumed you believe in the Christian god, and even living out in the middle of the country I still live near seven or eight churches.

 

[Poisonshady313]

"16. [The teacher] told A.B. that she was very concerned about what he had done and that she was going to contact his mother — although she never did."

If A.B. were a bully, this would be a clear example of the teacher dropping the ball, and even if no damages would be awarded to A.B. or his mother, the teacher should be removed from her position anyhow.

And some part of me strongly believes that if bullying were an issue it would have made its way into the complaint. The teacher would have attempted to defend her behavior, and the author of the complaint would have had to spend a sentence or two trying to discredit that.

If the teacher admitted her role in the incident was as described in the complaint, it makes it that much harder to believe that A.B. had actually done anything wrong.

 

[Unification]

I have seen fully grown adults become upset when someone says they don't believe in god. Indiana is very much a state where recognition and respect for religious diversity is the exception, prayer before public meetings is not uncommon, Christian billboards are abundant, it is pretty much assumed you believe in the Christian god, and even living out in the middle of the country I still live near seven or eight churches.

I can understand that and your experience in Indiana would make that as such, and why there is a reasonable possibility the allegations could be more likely in a particular region or state. I'd still like this to play out in court and get all of the information out from all involved before assuming I already know everything based off of what only one party states.

 

[Unification]

"16. [The teacher] told A.B. that she was very concerned about what he had done and that she was going to contact his mother — although she never did."

If A.B. were a bully, this would be a clear example of the teacher dropping the ball, and even if no damages would be awarded to A.B. or his mother, the teacher should be removed from her position anyhow.

And some part of me strongly believes that if bullying were an issue it would have made its way into the complaint. The teacher would have attempted to defend her behavior, and the author of the complaint would have had to spend a sentence or two trying to discredit that.

If the teacher admitted her role in the incident was as described in the complaint, it makes it that much harder to believe that A.B. had actually done anything wrong.

"If" the teacher admitted her role and it was EXACTLY what was said. Will need the principal's testimony to confirm. As of now, it's "one party's word." One party can say anything that they want against another.

The ball "may" have been dropped by the disciple handed out. A teacher can't defend her behavior in a plaintiff's suit, it needs defended in court of law, as the defense.

If one is filing a suit, their suit would be practically negated if bullying was brought up. Shooting themselves.

 

[Poisonshady313]

"If" the teacher admitted her role and it was EXACTLY what was said. Will need the principal's testimony to confirm. As of now, it's "one party's word." One party can say anything that they want against another.

The ball "may" have been dropped by the disciple handed out. A teacher can't defend her behavior in a plaintiff's suit, it needs defended in court of law, as the defense.

If one is filing a suit, their suit would be practically negated if bullying was brought up. Shooting themselves.

Would the ACLU be so foolish as to just straight up lie about that? I get omitting details that might be harmful to one's case... but outright lying about what the defendant says is asking to be found out, disputed, and destroy one's own case.

I'm not talking about shooting one's self ... I'm talking about defeating obstacles before stumbling over them.

 

[averageJOE]

I would lose my mind. This is straight bullying by the teachers.

 

[averageJOE]

Apparently, being offended by someone else's lack of belief is enough of a thing that it has been represented in film.

For those who can't see the video, essentially the Gunnery Sgt. Hartman asks if Pvt. Joker believes in the Virgin Mary. Joker responds "Sir, no sir." Hartman repeats his question, and when given the same answer, proceeds to insult and slap Joker then insist that he proclaim his love for the Virgin Mary. When Joker refuses, Hartman asks "Are you trying to offend me?"

...and then immediately afterwards the gunny sergeant promotes Pvt. Joker for standing by his belief, not changing it despite being slapped in the face, because it was the quality of a leader.

 

[Unification]

Would the ACLU be so foolish as to just straight up lie about that? I get omitting details that might be harmful to one's case... but outright lying about what the defendant says is asking to be found out, disputed, and destroy one's own case.

I'm not talking about shooting one's self ... I'm talking about defeating obstacles before stumbling over them.

Happens abundantly by the split second. Have to wait to see how it plays out.

Here is the initial response to the allegations:
http://wane.com/2015/08/04/fwcs-responds-to-lawsuit-against-teacher/

 

[Poisonshady313]

Happens abundantly by the split second. Have to wait to see how it plays out.

Here is the initial response to the allegations:
http://wane.com/2015/08/04/fwcs-responds-to-lawsuit-against-teacher/

Vague and useless. A long winded way of saying "nuh-uh". If they're going to say she acted "in a significantly different manner than detailed in the lawsuit.", I'd like to hear some specifics. Also, we have yet to hear from the teacher herself.

 

[Unification]

Vague and useless. A long winded way of saying "nuh-uh". If they're going to say she acted "in a significantly different manner than detailed in the lawsuit.", I'd like to hear some specifics. Also, we have yet to hear from the teacher herself.

Sure, it is vague and useless .. Just as the allegations are at this current time.

Have to wait and see how it plays out in court.

As they say, the positive claimant has to provide evidence, not words.

 

[Curious George]

SOCRATES: But if true belief and knowledge were the same thing, the best of jurymen could never have a correct belief without knowledge. It now appears that they must be different things.


And you are no Socrates it was pathetic quote mining out of desperation.




THEAETETUS: That true belief is knowledge. Surely there can at least be no mistake in believing what is true and the consequences are always satisfactory.


…

SOCRATES: Well, we need not go far to see this much. You will find a whole profession to prove that true belief is not knowledge.

Perhaps you are not familiar with what but see means?

 

[Curious George]

http://ils.unc.edu/~losee/b5/node9.html

A belief that is true but for which we have no evidence cannot be described as knowledge

we can be certain that ``knowledge is not, or is not merely, justified true belief"

This is regarding the well-justified true belief formulation.

 

[Curious George]

http://ils.unc.edu/~losee/b5/node9.html

A belief that is true but for which we have no evidence cannot be described as knowledge

we can be certain that ``knowledge is not, or is not merely, justified true belief"

And I already addressed gettier. Either you do not understand what you are reading or you are trying to open a hole to fit through. Gettier's point was knowledge cannot be only a justified true belief because there exists circumstances where something is a justified true belief but not knowledge. So, gettiers example was NOT KNOWLEDGE. This doesn't change the fact that all scholarly sources regard propositional knowledge as a belief. ALL.

 

[Curious George]

For clarification, are you asking what would have been the professional and ethical way to handle the child? or are you asking what is the professional and ethical way to handle the teacher if we suppose she did everything the complaint says she did, except the atheist child was the one being disruptive?

Both actually.

 

[Curious George]

SOCRATES: But if true belief and knowledge were the same thing, the best of jurymen could never have a correct belief without knowledge. It now appears that they must be different things.


And you are no Socrates it was pathetic quote mining out of desperation.




THEAETETUS: That true belief is knowledge. Surely there can at least be no mistake in believing what is true and the consequences are always satisfactory.


…

SOCRATES: Well, we need not go far to see this much. You will find a whole profession to prove that true belief is not knowledge.

The citation is not for the quote. The citation is Plato arguing against the attributed quote of his. One must not cite sources for famous quotes. However, one must cite contradictory information. In theaetesus he argues against this perspective of well justified belief. The signal phrase "but see" signals the reader that the writer is offering contrary information to what they just wrote.

Are you sure you understand academic writing? I figured you must the way you were going on about "academia" and "sources"

Type the quote in a journal finder, you will see it is attributed to Plato.

 

[JoStories]

Not really the point, the point is that it's not about you, it's about the child. And it becomes more about other children and other people affected who had nothing to do with it. Would money make you feel better and resolve the problem? Loathing in pity resolves? Money brings protection? Why not spread awareness so other children aren't aren't affected?

No going back and scarred for life is simply not true, I can see why it would be true with a ton of emotion, anger, hate, pity, blame, spite, money, etc. Learn to let go, and forgive, it can't be changed. Positive strong will. Seek prevention. Seek better preparation for the rudiments of the world for children. There is strong will and it's more beneficial than the route that most take. Maybe then there can be escaping event horizon by an even stronger will.

I strongly disagree. A child bullied can be scarred for life. It remains a factor. They get beyond it and learn from it but it remains a factor. I speak from personal experience. I was bullied and while I have moved beyond that, it still affected my life. As for the act itself, I continue to disagree with you. Yes, it is about the child but you speak as though it was nothing all that much and it was. Believe as you wish but I will continue to disagree.

 

[JoStories]

Would the ACLU be so foolish as to just straight up lie about that? I get omitting details that might be harmful to one's case... but outright lying about what the defendant says is asking to be found out, disputed, and destroy one's own case.

I'm not talking about shooting one's self ... I'm talking about defeating obstacles before stumbling over them.

I also think there is a factor no one has considered here. This was reported and journalists have a responsibility to report truth, with the obvious exception of rag magazines where integrity means jack. This had to be at least truthful to the greatest extent possible to be printed. If it had not been, the parties involved would be open to serious law suits. And as you say, why would a group such as the ACLU get involved if the story were factually wrong? Of course they would not which also lends credence to the story, IMO.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Happens abundantly by the split second. Have to wait to see how it plays out.

Here is the initial response to the allegations:
http://wane.com/2015/08/04/fwcs-responds-to-lawsuit-against-teacher/

My bus driver was a terrible driver: she never had the interior lights on so you could see where you was walking, she drove too fast; she often didn't wait for students and often done less than a rolling-stop - if she even stopped at all. But the district defender her as one of their best drivers.

Vague and useless. A long winded way of saying "nuh-uh". If they're going to say she acted "in a significantly different manner than detailed in the lawsuit.", I'd like to hear some specifics. Also, we have yet to hear from the teacher herself.

It makes me wonder why the school waited for so long to do their own investigation.