What Would You Do?

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by vincemacpaul

Haha. Just as I thought my friend. My 2 bottle fed kitties just got the plumbing removed after 6 months and we're all wearing tin foil hats in my lap as they're recovering. Life is good.

and i just made chocolate / peanut butter / banana milk shakes for my family..... it is gonna turn us all into chocoholic's.... who live in rabbit holes.

so what are you trying to say?

[vincemacpaul]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

and i just made chocolate / peanut butter / banana milk shakes for my family..... it is gonna turn us all into chocoholic's.... who live in rabbit holes.

so what are you trying to say?

Life is good.

[Duck Butter]

My boss invited me to his camp for what he called a couchon de lait and then we were going to catch sacaulait or something like that. I told him hell no I won't go and a matter of fact he can shove this job where the sun don't shine because this is America and we speak American amirite

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

My boss invited me to his camp for what he called a couchon de lait and then we were going to catch sacaulait or something like that. I told him hell no I won't go and a matter of fact he can shove this job where the sun don't shine because this is America and we speak American amirite

amen brother preach it!!

[duckman1911]

Damn it. I leave you boys alone for a few hours and it all goes straight to hell.lol. Ole vince sure seems to know a lot about everyone.
DB that was some funny stuff.

[pan pan chuck]

I was just thinking about the scene from Ron burgandy anchorman that escalated fast ! lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

[simplepeddler]

What I mean is.....many many people have a stand.......very few are convicted enough to lose a job over it.........

I myself have been fired twice......but vermiculite may not believe me

[newguy]

at the end of the day, the young man is an American reciting the pledge of allegiance..it don't matter what language he says it in

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by newguy

at the end of the day, the young man is an American reciting the pledge of allegiance..it don't matter what language he says it in

If it matters to him, it matters to me.

Schools should not force diversity down students' throats against their will.

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it includes freedom to remain silent.

[Goooh]

Vermiculite... That was good for an early laugh, thanks Peddler!

[mcjaredsandwich]

Jon Stewart makes point

[Clampy]

^^ I watched that. Great stuff. Guess that makes me a libtard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

The rhetorical approach of mocking to create a straw man fallacy is unwarranted.

The matter at hand is whether a young man should be allowed to respectfully refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance in spanish because doing so troubles his conscience.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The rhetorical approach of mocking to create a straw man fallacy is unwarranted.

The matter at hand is whether a young man should be allowed to respectfully refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance in spanish because doing so troubles his conscience.

I think duckman is trolling right? Let me rephrase that, I HOPE duckman is trolling


They are pledging allegiance to the USA, whats the problem? Y'all are overthinking this, no need to write letters or call congressmen or lose your job over it

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I think duckman is trolling right? Let me rephrase that, I HOPE duckman is trolling


They are pledging allegiance to the USA, whats the problem? Y'all are overthinking this, no need to write letters or call congressmen or lose your job over it

A person's right to exercise his conscience in refraining from an objectionable act does not and should not depend on whether that objection of conscience is reasonable to the majority or the instituting authority.

Attempts to de-legitimize the objection of conscience only serve to justify the state forcing the objectionable act upon the individual.

The idea behind the words, "This is not the big deal they are making it out to be" has been used to attempt to force all kinds of people to violate their consciences.

My point is that if a person's conscience is violated, it is a big deal to them, and the state should not be forcing people to violate their consciences.

Suppose an angler had a problem of conscience killing fish he caught that he did not intend to eat. Should the state make and enforce a law requiring that every specimen of some invasive species (say Northern Pike in some western streams and reservoirs) be killed immediately after it is caught? Should anglers be forced to kill fish they do not intend to eat, even if doing so violates their conscience?

To be sure, killing invasive species is good fisheries management, and I do not understand why someone would object to good fisheries management. But the exercise of free conscience should not depend on the reasonableness of the objection to the majority or to the governmental authority.

[mcjaredsandwich]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

A person's right to exercise his conscience in refraining from an objectionable act does not and should not depend on whether that objection of conscience is reasonable to the majority or the instituting authority.

Attempts to de-legitimize the objection of conscience only serve to justify the state forcing the objectionable act upon the individual.

But the exercise of free conscience should not depend on the reasonableness of the objection to the majority or to the governmental authority.

this statement can be applied to everything you are against...gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the representation of cultural diversity in America...

[Clampy]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

this statement can be applied to everything you are against...gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the representation of cultural diversity in America...

Well said. Here we go another 100 comments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

this statement can be applied to everything you are against...gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, the representation of cultural diversity in America...

Not really in the way you think. The objection is with the use of force to override the individual conscience.

So if a bakery or church has an objection of conscience to providing services for a gay marriage, then the government should not force them to.

Cultural diversity should be represented in America, and I am in no way against that. I would be against forcing private parties to accommodate representation against their own wishes.

There are key differences in forcing private citizens to perform acts which violate their conscience and restricting them from certain acts through due process of Constitutional law. The boundaries of due process of Constitutional law to place behavioral restrictions are well established and explicitly enumerated.

And yes, there is a long history of feigning objections of conscience to avoid submitting to reasonable exercise of governmental authority. Lots of purported "conscientious objectors" to various wars were merely cowards trying to avoid military service. The movie, Sgt. York, had a good portrayal of a reasonable approach to accommodating a true conscientious objector and helping one work through the issues within the boundaries of his faith and conscience.

The question of malingering regarding school assignments is easily addressed by allowing alternate assignments in cases where the original assignment offends the conscience. I'm sure there are many good pieces of similar length and difficulty that can be learned and recited in spanish if reciting the Pledge of Allegiance offends an individual's conscience.

The proof of an authority's lust for power is when they refuse to allow an alternate assignment and insist on forcing a student to violate their conscience.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

A person's right to exercise his conscience in refraining from an objectionable act does not and should not depend on whether that objection of conscience is reasonable to the majority or the instituting authority.

Attempts to de-legitimize the objection of conscience only serve to justify the state forcing the objectionable act upon the individual.

The idea behind the words, "This is not the big deal they are making it out to be" has been used to attempt to force all kinds of people to violate their consciences.

My point is that if a person's conscience is violated, it is a big deal to them, and the state should not be forcing people to violate their consciences.

Suppose an angler had a problem of conscience killing fish he caught that he did not intend to eat. Should the state make and enforce a law requiring that every specimen of some invasive species (say Northern Pike in some western streams and reservoirs) be killed immediately after it is caught? Should anglers be forced to kill fish they do not intend to eat, even if doing so violates their conscience?

To be sure, killing invasive species is good fisheries management, and I do not understand why someone would object to good fisheries management. But the exercise of free conscience should not depend on the reasonableness of the objection to the majority or to the governmental authority.

I applaud you and your daughter for standing up for what you think is right. We are all entitled to do that, but we also have to face the consequences - i.e. getting an F, or getting fired. To me those decisions can affect you the rest of your life in a much more negative way than reading some book (I don't think the book your daughter was reading was Mein Kampf).

What book was it that your daughter was supposed to read that was worth you and your wife no longer having a job?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

What book was it that your daughter was supposed to read that was worth you and your wife no longer having a job?

You miss the point entirely. The point is that there is no job worth parents forcing a child to violate the child's conscience.

Likewise, in the above case, the issue is not whether a student's exercise of conscience is reasonable with regard to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in spanish, but whether the parents (and the school) should be forcing the child (in this case a young man) to violate his conscience.

The answer is no, neither schools nor parents should force children to violate their consciences in these matters. The conscience is what allows children and young adults to stand against peer pressure and all sorts of other evil.

The conscience is a precious treasure and should be defended and protected rather than violated.

And my wife and I were not unemployed for long. Within a few months, I had a far better teaching position and a salary increase of 60%. My wife only managed a 20% increase in her income, but cut her workload in half in the process.