Can't say "knife" in high school

paflyer said:
Probably didn't believe this one either.

PopTartGunjpg.jpg
Click to expand...
it's being held the wrong way; it's actually the letter "L":rofl:
 
Cooter said:
What evidence do you have that supports this idea that the influence of binary reactions are limited to our Puritan heritage? And how does that relate to Calvinistic belief?
Click to expand...

Not just Calvinist teachings, but also the Puritans' extreme interpretation of Calvin's soteriological teachings, especially regarding predestination, equal ultimacy, foreordination, total depravity, prevenient grace, and the manifestations of salvation.

John Calvin taught a form of predestination known as "individual double predestination" or "equal ultimacy." What that means is that Calvin believed that long before any of us were born, God had specifically and individually destined some people to be saved and to go to heaven, and others to remain unsaved and to be damned to hell. All humans are born into a state of total depravity, Calvin taught; but those whom God chose in advance (and only those whom He called in advance) would receive an irresistible call to salvation known as "prevenient grace."

Calvin also taught that salvation is immediate and permanent upon a person's acceptance of Jesus Christ as facilitated by prevenient grace. Once saved, a person could never lose their salvation. That's known theologically as "eternal security," and it's a necessary corollary to a belief in individual predestination. He also taught that a person's genuine salvation would be accompanied and evidenced by good works and repentance, commonly known as "sanctification," which literally means progressively separating oneself from sin and to God.

The Puritans interpreted Calvin's teachings in ways that not even Calvin had suggested. For example, they taught that measures of good health, material wealth, and other temporal blessings were evidences of salvation; or for those who could safely be assumed to have been saved, of how closely their lives conformed to God's will. Sickness, poverty, community strife, and other vicissitudes of human existence were all blamed either on a person's not being in line with God's will, or on demonically-inspired persecution. Nothing happened by chance. Everything was foreordained, and everything had some divine reason in the big scheme of things.

Garrison Keillor quite accurately jokes that Puritans were people who left England in search of more restrictions than were permissible under British law. He says it as a joke, but it's actually quite true. Having succeeded in so thoroughly ostracizing themselves from mainstream British society by their bizarrely complex system of religious imperatives, they wore out their welcome in England and were forced to seek refuge elsewhere.

They first sailed to Holland in search of the religious freedom they needed to to restrict themselves. But once there, they found the lifestyles of the tolerant Dutch to be too licentious for their liking. They also believed that Dutch excesses were causing their adults to age prematurely and their children to be "drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses." They also were discouraged by the poverty in which they found themselves, and interpreted it as a sign from God that they were out of His will by staying in Holland.

The truth is that most of the Puritans' problems in Holland had to do with the fact that the Puritans, upon arriving in Holland, had immediately gone to work making themselves as obnoxious and unwelcome in Holland as they had been in England. They suffered poverty because no one would hire them. The tolerant Dutch not only resented the Puritans' pretentious piety, prudery, and proselytizing; but they also believed that the Puritans were more than a bit crazy and kept their distance from them. The end result was that the Puritans became marginalized in Holland, as well.

And so the Puritans planned to sail again, but to where? Many destinations were considered, but ultimately they secured a land patent and sailed to the New World in search of a world where they would be free not only to live by their own highly-legalistic set of rules, but to impose them on others so they would not be corrupted by the licentiousness of those around them. And so they began their illustrious history in North America, one that has been marked by accomplishments ranging from the Mayflower Compact on one extreme, to the Salem Witch Trials on the other.

In fact, Puritan thinking can best be summed up in the word "extremes." To the Puritans, humans were clearly divided into two distinct groups: the saved and the damned. The saved would always be saved, and the damned would always be damned. No one could cross from one team to the other. You were either a member of the God Squad or you weren't. That decision had already been made by God long before you were born, and you couldn't change it. That was the core of their binary framework.

From within that framework were born other decidedly un-biblical assumptions such as that the poor were poor because that was God's will; that people who committed crimes of either the civil or ecclesiastical sort did so because they were essentially evil and beyond rehabilitation; that it was okay to kill suspected "witches" at the stake; and other beliefs that seem rather bizarre by modern standards, but which are still ingrained enough in the national psyche to be operative even today.

The thing is that we don't like those beliefs because we realize that they're bizarre. So we compensate for them either by opposing them a bit more strongly and ostentatiously than we need to (what Freud called "reaction formation"), or by dividing the people around us into binary groups based on how well they conform to our ideas of what are "right" and "wrong" thoughts, attitudes, behaviors, lifestyles, etc.

Some examples:

  • Everyone who voted for Trump must be a racist, a bigot, and a misogynist. They can't simply be people who favored his economic or foreign policy ideas (whatever they may be).
  • Everyone who voted for Clinton is a Socialist who hates America and all that it stands for. They can't simply be people who have a different vision for America or who thought her experiences better prepared her for the job.
  • Everyone who uses the term "radical Islamic terrorism" hates Muslims and is just as guilty of jihad as the terrorists are.
  • Everyone who refuses to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" embraces jihad and is just as guilty of murder as the terrorists are.
  • Every child who fashions a gun out of a Pop-Tart or draws one on a piece of paper is a future sociopath who needs to be removed from schools to protect the normal kids.
  • Every teacher who is concerned about a child who fashions a gun out of a Pop-Tart or draws one on a piece of paper is a collectivist who hates the individuality and independence that guns represent in American society.
  • Every student who designate himself or herself as a "safe zone" is a reprobate who rejects all traditions that are good, decent, and representative of America's traditional values.
  • Every student who does not designate his or herself as a "safe zone" is a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, and a bigot.
Do you see a pattern here?

Puritan interpretations of Calvinism, especially his soteriological teachings, resulted in very strong binary assumptions about people, behaviors, and circumstances. That tendency so infuses American society that many people have lost the ability to consider that people with whom they disagree may be just as sane, rational, and decent as they are; that people who commit crimes may have been under horrendous contributory circumstances; that people who are poor might be unfortunate rather than lazy; or that people who are rich might be skillful business people rather than greedy.

(continued)
 
(continuation)

This sort of thinking has also resulted in people who actually are turned off by things like homosexuality, just as an example, but who are ashamed that they feel that way, to overcompensate by wearing rainbows, marching in parades, and becoming safe zones to "prove" to themselves and others that they're not really homophobes. That's also very consistent with both Puritan tradition, where people tried to prove their salvation through good works; and with Freudian reaction formation.

The very act of labeling someone a homophobe, racist, misogynist, or whatever is also very consistent with Puritanism. What I mean by that is that like the Puritans, we tend to label people as being something evil, rather than taking the more measured position that they have ideas and beliefs with which we don't happen to agree. Either they agree with us, or they're evil -- or whatever else we may prefer to call them to avoid the overt religious overtones of the word "evil."

Another way in which Puritan binaryism has manifested itself lately is in all the stupid things that political candidates and appointees have said in the past being dredged up as evidence that they're unfit to serve as a result of things that they said five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. It doesn't matter if they actually did something. The mere fact that they thought or said something that we don't like is enough to brand them as essentially unfit; and like the Puritans, we hold out little hope that they may have changed because, after all, people can't change. They are what God decided they would be many years ago, long before they were born.

That's enough, I think. If you don't at least see where I'm going with this -- not necessarily agree, but just get the gist of what I'm saying -- then you never will. And that's okay with me. You wouldn't be the first one. It's also fine with me if you disagree with every single word I've written. When I was writing the thesis that would determine whether I got my degree, it mattered to me what people thought about it. Nowadays, on an Internet message board where absolutely nothing hangs in the balance, not so much.

But you did ask, and I answered; so take it for what it's worth. I hope you found it interesting, if nothing else.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
(continuation)

This sort of thinking has also resulted in people who actually are turned off by things like homosexuality, just as an example, but who are ashamed that they feel that way, to overcompensate by wearing rainbows, marching in parades, and becoming safe zones to "prove" to themselves and others that they're not really homophobes. That's also very consistent with both Puritan tradition, where people tried to prove their salvation through good works; and with Freudian reaction formation.

The very act of labeling someone a homophobe, racist, misogynist, or whatever is also very consistent with Puritanism. What I mean by that is that like the Puritans, we tend to label people as being something evil, rather than taking the more measured position that they have ideas and beliefs with which we don't happen to agree. Either they agree with us, or they're evil -- or whatever else we may prefer to call them to avoid the overt religious overtones of the word "evil."

Another way in which Puritan binaryism has manifested itself lately is in all the stupid things that political candidates and appointees have said in the past being dredged up as evidence that they're unfit to serve as a result of things that they said five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago. It doesn't matter if they actually did something. The mere fact that they thought or said something that we don't like is enough to brand them as essentially unfit; and like the Puritans, we hold out little hope that they may have changed because, after all, people can't change. They are what God decided they would be many years ago, long before they were born.

That's enough, I think. If you don't at least see where I'm going with this -- not necessarily agree, but just get the gist of what I'm saying -- then you never will. And that's okay with me. You wouldn't be the first one. It's also fine with me if you disagree with every single word I've written. When I was writing the thesis that would determine whether I got my degree, it mattered to me what people thought about it. Nowadays, on an Internet message board where absolutely nothing hangs in the balance, not so much.

But you did ask, and I answered; so take it for what it's worth. I hope you found it interesting, if nothing else.

Rich
Click to expand...
Well it was certainly more than I was expecting.:)

Interesting take, although my initial response is that I disagree. I'm not broadly familiar with the Puritan's teachings but from what I have been exposed to, I've not encountered what you seem to be describing. From the Puritans and those that followed, I see quite the opposite represented. Bunyan, Cowper, Brainerd, Edwards, Whitefield and Charles Wesley did not teach health, wealth and prosperity the way you describe. They are representative of Puritan teaching in my understanding, but I don't know much beyond their contribution. Perhaps you are looking at a different sample that I am not familiar with.

I would, however, question what you would consider a non-extreme view of Calvinist soteriology to be. I understand Calvinism to be straight-forward and still believed by many evangelicals today. Regardless of the role prosperity played, I don't know exactly how the Puritans would radicalize Calvin's teachings on salvation beyond what he taught. I agree that many will pick and choose from Calvin's teachings and form a less offensive soteriology, or read more into it that what he taught (hyper-calvinism). But what you describe as extreme is exactly I think Calvin believed and taught. How that is applied is another subject, but there certainly isn't a necessary correlation to a binary reaction if the doctrine is fully understood.

My take is that you weave a thread through a selective history that could likely have been woven through many different paths. There are aspects of human nature that quite easily offer a different explanation for where we are in politics and public discourse today. I think Islam could rightly be described as binary, and I'm not sure they derived that influence from the Puritans.;) The same, in fact, could be pointed out many times over. A quick look at the last century alone would provide sufficient evidence. But, even though I disagree I will acknowledge that it is an intriguing argument for your thesis. Did you have to defend it? If so, I am curious to what the challenges were. If you don't mind sharing, which school and what was your degree in?

Thanks for the lengthy response. I think I will go browse the bookshelf and re-familiarize myself with the Puritans! I have to admit when I picked a few books off the shelf earlier, much of what I considered to be Puritan writings came later. I'm not exactly sure where that boundary is drawn.
 
I didn't have the patience or interest to read much of those posts, but my impression is that they have to be the most thoughtful discussion of religious matters I've ever seen on a message board!
 
Palmpilot said:
I didn't have the patience or interest to read much of those posts, but my impression is that they have to be the most thoughtful discussion of religious matters I've ever seen on a message board!
Click to expand...
I don't remember if it was on this board or not, but I saw a comment the other day that said pilots fall into one of three categories: Partiers, perverts, and Bible-thumpers. Funny, and mostly true from my experience.
 
paflyer said:
With the insane level of political correctness that we have to live with, why does this seem so implausible?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's impossible, or even implausible. Depends on whether it's more important that a story be factually true, or whether it matches one's own politics.

If this happened, the school and the approximate date should be available. With that, it should be easy to find local news coverage about the event. With confirmation, I'd decry it as much as anybody.

"A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth finishes pulling on its pants..."

Ron Wanttaja
 
Cooter said:
Well it was certainly more than I was expecting.:)

Interesting take, although my initial response is that I disagree. I'm not broadly familiar with the Puritan's teachings but from what I have been exposed to, I've not encountered what you seem to be describing. From the Puritans and those that followed, I see quite the opposite represented. Bunyan, Cowper, Brainerd, Edwards, Whitefield and Charles Wesley did not teach health, wealth and prosperity the way you describe. They are representative of Puritan teaching in my understanding, but I don't know much beyond their contribution. Perhaps you are looking at a different sample that I am not familiar with.

I would, however, question what you would consider a non-extreme view of Calvinist soteriology to be. I understand Calvinism to be straight-forward and still believed by many evangelicals today. Regardless of the role prosperity played, I don't know exactly how the Puritans would radicalize Calvin's teachings on salvation beyond what he taught. I agree that many will pick and choose from Calvin's teachings and form a less offensive soteriology, or read more into it that what he taught (hyper-calvinism). But what you describe as extreme is exactly I think Calvin believed and taught. How that is applied is another subject, but there certainly isn't a necessary correlation to a binary reaction if the doctrine is fully understood.

My take is that you weave a thread through a selective history that could likely have been woven through many different paths. There are aspects of human nature that quite easily offer a different explanation for where we are in politics and public discourse today. I think Islam could rightly be described as binary, and I'm not sure they derived that influence from the Puritans.;) The same, in fact, could be pointed out many times over. A quick look at the last century alone would provide sufficient evidence. But, even though I disagree I will acknowledge that it is an intriguing argument for your thesis. Did you have to defend it? If so, I am curious to what the challenges were. If you don't mind sharing, which school and what was your degree in?

Thanks for the lengthy response. I think I will go browse the bookshelf and re-familiarize myself with the Puritans! I have to admit when I picked a few books off the shelf earlier, much of what I considered to be Puritan writings came later. I'm not exactly sure where that boundary is drawn.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

By the way, some of the people you cited were not Puritans. Bunyan was a Baptist. I think Cowper was Anglican. Whitefield was definitely Anglican and was one of the founders of Methodism, along with Charles and John Wesley, whose Arminian-based theology was (and still is) the antithesis of Calvinism on soteriological matters, especially predestination and foreordination.

I think maybe you're using a more generic definition of Puritanism than I am. I'm referring only to the actual sect, not its offshoots, branches, or general influence.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Thanks.

By the way, some of the people you cited were not Puritans. Bunyan was a Baptist. I think Cowper was Anglican. Whitefield was definitely Anglican and was one of the founders of Methodism, along with Charles and John Wesley, whose Arminian-based theology was (and still is) the antithesis of Calvinism on soteriological matters, especially predestination and foreordination.

I think maybe you're using a more generic definition of Puritanism than I am. I'm referring only to the actual sect, not its offshoots, branches, or general influence.

Rich
Click to expand...
I thought that was probably the case. I am not that familiar with them as you describe, probably because I've lazily regarded everyone from that timeframe as Puritan. BTW, Charles was a Calvinist and John was an Arminian. I think Charles grew to accept it over time, I don't know when that occurred exactly. My knowledge of it comes from reading about Whitefield and his interaction with the Wesleys.
 
I also found the analysis interesting. I don't know enough about religion to comment on that part, but there are definitely people who see the world in black and white and others who see it in shades of grey. I'm not sure if it's inborn, learned, or both. These types of people show up on all sides of political and other argument, but the black and whiters always seem to be the most vocal.
 
I missed your question regarding my degrees. I'd rather not name the schools, but I have a Bachelor's in Psychology from a state college, a Professional Diploma in Bible and Theology from a school in the Wesleyan tradition, and a Masters in Religion (not any particular religion) from a private university that has a loose affiliation with the Anglican church.

My own beliefs are basically Wesleyan, but I'm not very dogmatic. I used to know everything, but grad school took care of that. The more I study, the less I'm sure about.

I'm considering going for my PhD. If I succeed, I expect to know nothing.

Rich
 
Cooter said:
I thought that was probably the case. I am not that familiar with them as you describe, probably because I've lazily regarded everyone from that timeframe as Puritan. BTW, Charles was a Calvinist and John was an Arminian. I think Charles grew to accept it over time, I don't know when that occurred exactly. My knowledge of it comes from reading about Whitefield and his interaction with the Wesleys.
Click to expand...

Yes, my phrasing was poor. I was referring to John, whom I mentioned last, but my sentence structure didn't make that clear. My apologies.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Yes, my phrasing was poor. I was referring to John, whom I mentioned last, but my sentence structure didn't make that clear. My apologies.

Rich
Click to expand...
My memory may not be perfectly clear on their positions, I just remember that the tension was much greater between Whitefield and John W. on that matter. In reading through the correspondence between them, Charles seemed much closer to Whitefield's position. That opinion may not be shared by all, and the labels might not perfectly reflect today's understanding of those views.

I've enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
 
Cooter said:
My memory may not be perfectly clear on their positions, I just remember that the tension was much greater between Whitefield and John W. on that matter. In reading through the correspondence between them, Charles seemed much closer to Whitefield's position. That opinion may not be shared by all, and the labels might not perfectly reflect today's understanding of those views.

I've enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Likewise. :)

Rich
 
Brad Z said:
I see made-up news stories every day in my Facebook news feed and other corners of the internet. Often they're repeated by folks who didn't do any fact checking, or worse, didn't even read the article.Heck, there are folks who get outraged over Onion articles.

Nate: do us a favor...allow us to "snopes" this. Tell us the name of the school, the class, whatever details you can get. I'm sure we can get to the bottom of this. Worst thing that could happen is we're all in for a good laugh...perhaps we can shed some light on absurdity. But, as long as it's an apocryphal story without any means of verifying, I'm 99% certain it's a misunderstanding or a tall tale.
Click to expand...

I've posted everything I know without giving his name, but anyone who knows me in other online places can figure it out. There is nothing to "snopes", I posted it exactly as it was offered. Direct from the dad who posted it.

Cooter said:
I don't remember if it was on this board or not, but I saw a comment the other day that said pilots fall into one of three categories: Partiers, perverts, and Bible-thumpers. Funny, and mostly true from my experience.
Click to expand...

I've met some who are all three or combinations of any of those, at the same time.

wanttaja said:
I'm not saying it's impossible, or even implausible. Depends on whether it's more important that a story be factually true, or whether it matches one's own politics.

If this happened, the school and the approximate date should be available. With that, it should be easy to find local news coverage about the event. With confirmation, I'd decry it as much as anybody.

"A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth finishes pulling on its pants..."

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

It's a direct quote from a personal friend I used to work with and my response. There isn't any "local news coverage", I don't think he's making any stink about it to the school and it didn't sound like any other parents were either. He just recounted his conversation with his high schooler.

I did, however, since there's a lot of skepticism here, post to tell him that I'd shared his words with a different group and my response (to which he said, "Well said!" originally a few days ago) and that about 20-30% don't believe it happened, or there's some misunderstanding, or that we should "snopes" it -- and that he'd probably get a kick out of that. I'll share any responses from him.

The story about the family member also is direct, but even more vague, since we don't talk about that one in public -- due to the warning from the "investigators" that the parents will simply find something else to be obsessed with, unless someone reminds them of it.

So no discussion of that one any further than has been said...

RJM62 said:
... Arminian-based theology was (and still is) the antithesis of Calvinism on soteriological matters, especially predestination and foreordination.
Click to expand...

I know a pastor and wife who got divorced over whether or not to raise the kids Calvinists or Arminian*.

LOL... think about how messed up that is.

Nothing surprises me anymore after hearing that doozie, when it comes to disagreements of doctrine.

* I suspect the reality is that they had other significant relationship problems going on and that was just the completely whacked story for public consumption. But even then... who'd use that story for a divorce?! Haha. Wow. Blaming differences of theology on a divorce was a new one on me, back then.
 
I know this sounds crazy, but sometimes high school students exaggerate the truth, misquote their teachers, and even straight-up lie to their parents, particularly if it elicits a reaction from them. I mean I never did that, but I've known others who have...
 
Brad Z said:
I know this sounds crazy, but sometimes high school students exaggerate the truth, misquote their teachers, and even straight-up lie to their parents, particularly if it elicits a reaction from them. I mean I never did that, but I've known others who have...
Click to expand...

Sure, no doubt. I'm assuming said parent took this into account.

It was a pretty rare day when my parents didn't know I was making crap up for a reaction or whatever reason.

Plus we are talking about a pretty specific thing here -- most students wouldn't bother coming up with the long phrase the teacher made them replace the word knife with, just for a lie to dad in an otherwise innocuous conversation.

On your side of it, though, I'm sure dad has lots of other things to do than call up the teacher and ask bunches of questions about it.

Dad's reaction is more "eye roll" at the school's silliness versus "angry glare" in the direction of said school. He's probably not too concerned that his kid knows what a knife is, nor too concerned that for some reason some teacher decided it was a naughty word.

Probably proud the kid recognized that it showed that the teacher or someone with power over the teacher is dumber than a box of rocks, too.
 
Well he put this reply out in public in response to my "folks don't believe this story" thing, and it wasn't just one kid... so I think I'm safe to share it here also.

"I might not have believed it either but 3 of my 4 kids were very emphatic about it...including my daughter, a sophomore who had the class last year.

You've got me curious to see if I can get some sort of documented proof, i.e...something they wrote or received in class. That would be hilarious.

The school is Park Hill HS in KC. I'm sure it's a district policy and I'm going to be banned or exiled for revealing their secret handshake."

Make of it what you will, but it sounds like it's not only true, but been going on for a while.
 
denverpilot said:
Well he put this reply out in public in response to my "folks don't believe this story" thing, and it wasn't just one kid... so I think I'm safe to share it here also.

"I might not have believed it either but 3 of my 4 kids were very emphatic about it...including my daughter, a sophomore who had the class last year.

You've got me curious to see if I can get some sort of documented proof, i.e...something they wrote or received in class. That would be hilarious.

The school is Park Hill HS in KC. I'm sure it's a district policy and I'm going to be banned or exiled for revealing their secret handshake."

Make of it what you will, but it sounds like it's not only true, but been going on for a while.
Click to expand...
Can't bring a knife to school, but no official policy against saying the word.

http://www.parkhill.k12.mo.us/UserFiles/Servers/Server_62416/File/Handbook.pdf

Gosh...now I've been sucked into this, LOL....
 
Cooter said:
I don't remember if it was on this board or not, but I saw a comment the other day that said pilots fall into one of three categories: Partiers, perverts, and Bible-thumpers. Funny, and mostly true from my experience.
Click to expand...

But then don't most people, pilot or not, fall into this classification?
 
mscard88 said:
But then don't most people, pilot or not, fall into this classification?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be easier to make it two groups

1 puritanical/religious zealot
2 not.

Personally I like a good party, and compared to the boring vanilla folks, guess I do enjoy the occasional perversion once in a while... with the right chick of course ;)
 
mscard88 said:
But then don't most people, pilot or not, fall into this classification?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but pilots being mostly Type A tend to exaggerate the qualities. The lifestyle lends itself to exaggerating those as well. Travelling means more time away from accountability and freedom to express your perversions or partying interest. For the Bible thumpers, that makes them all the more vocal and rigid in their proclaimed abstinence from those things because the temptations are always at hand. That's my Psychology 101 assessment at least.
 
James331 said:
Wouldn't it be easier to make it two groups

1 puritanical/religious zealot
2 not.
Click to expand...

Easier but meaningless. According to that type of classification, anything can be substituted for No.1 and still be true.
 
Cooter said:
Maybe, but pilots being mostly Type A tend to exaggerate the qualities. The lifestyle lends itself to exaggerating those as well. Travelling means more time away from accountability and freedom to express your perversions or partying interest. For the Bible thumpers, that makes them all the more vocal and rigid in their proclaimed abstinence from those things because the temptations are always at hand. That's my Psychology 101 assessment at least.
Click to expand...

Pilots or not, sometimes it takes spending some time on each end of that continuum to realize that life makes more sense closer to the middle.

Rich
 
SkyDog58 said:
In fact, I think we need to eliminate the term "low wing" from our aviation vocabulary and replace it with "ground obscuring wing placement". I think it would help heal the ever present feelings of hurt and inferiority that HIGH wing pilots SHARE.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
wanttaja said:
I'm not saying it's impossible, or even implausible. Depends on whether it's more important that a story be factually true, or whether it matches one's own politics.

If this happened, the school and the approximate date should be available. With that, it should be easy to find local news coverage about the event. With confirmation, I'd decry it as much as anybody.

"A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth finishes pulling on its pants..."

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to hit the "news" to be true.
 
Just call it a "dagger" or "small machete". Problem solved. :D
 
paflyer said:
It doesn't have to hit the "news" to be true.
Click to expand...
True, but is Kansas City such a liberal hotbed that this story was suppressed? Are all of the conservative parents so afraid that they won't make a public comment themselves?

Has Fox News picked up on this yet? if not, why not?

If I call the school representatives and they deny the story, who do I believe...the PR flack or the friend of a friend of a friend?

And, again, we're back to context. With the complex geopolitical and technical aspects of the Great War, how did the curriculum even reach down as far as simple knives so that an euphemism had to be mandated?

I can see ways this MIGHT have occurred. I just want some facts to indicate this was anything more than someone's joke that others took seriously.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
True, but is Kansas City such a liberal hotbed that this story was suppressed? Are all of the conservative parents so afraid that they won't make a public comment themselves?

Has Fox News picked up on this yet? if not, why not?

If I call the school representatives and they deny the story, who do I believe...the PR flack or the friend of a friend of a friend?

And, again, we're back to context. With the complex geopolitical and technical aspects of the Great War, how did the curriculum even reach down as far as simple knives so that an euphemism had to be mandated?

I can see ways this MIGHT have occurred. I just want some facts to indicate this was anything more than someone's joke that others took seriously.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

It's not that far removed. We're talking a personal story from MY friend here, and three of his four kids confirming that it's the policy of a single class, over multiple years -- not some silly Kevin Bacon seven degrees of separation.

His wife now thinks y'all's disbelief is pretty funny too, now that I asked him for more details.

In general though, this is how we are now... so much fake news that an actual interesting classroom weirdness is eyed with so much skepticism that nobody even notices it.

(Not to mention that most of these weird behaviors come out of the "education" sector of life. Which probably makes people more skeptical...)

So, back to the original question: What in the world makes a person charged with educating young people think such weirdness is normal, helpful, useful, or even congruent with "educating"?

Which need on Maslow's hierarchy is involved in the decision to not do one's job of educating and instead play word games in a classroom?

I've hinted at where he posted this. Skeptics can find it easily and even ask him questions about it.

I even passed along the skepticism and he got a good chuckle out of it as did his wife. There doesn't appear to be any organized parental "protest" or anything -- just three of his four kids simultaneously confirming oddball classroom rules for a particular history class, over multiple years.

Sounds like dad was even skeptical because the kids all felt they needed to confirm it.

(Have to read between the lines for that one and imagine the scene. Kid tells dad about it, dad says "shucks" essentially and doesn't believe it, other two kids dogpile on and tell dad it's a real thing in that class... kids are different ages so they took the class in different school years... dad jokes in public about it... I'm fascinated enough by the behavior of the teacher that I post here about the psychology... 30% don't believe... dad and mom laugh... they've got more important things to worry about raising four kids, and the kids already know it's goofy...)

Granted, for all we know it's one teacher who's weird. But that's the behavior I'm most interested in... surely lots of people surrounding this scenario know that teacher does it... chalk it up to the teacher being odd perhaps...? I doubt that same teacher if someone said "Hey grab a knife and cut the bread over there..." at a dinner party would launch into a speech about calling it something else. But they're okay with behaving like that in front of students in a classroom.

The story and the specifics don't matter that much, for the question posed. There's plenty of oddball stories floating around that may be subject to that seven degrees of separation problem and the "telephone" effect. I dismiss a lot of those, too. But not all.

And it's a little different for me having known the family for 20 years on this one... they're not exactly the emotional freak-out folks I usually see posting drivel. Just a dad posting a reaction of feeling like three of his kids just told him something quite odd and jumped him when HE didn't believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top