Teacher Fired For His Beliefs

[SLCPUNK]

It's all based on logic.  There is a logical reason why all of those arguments are invalid.  the problem is that the majority of posters and comments on this board are logically invalid (even SLC who constantly calls someone a liar or hypocrite - both of which are logical fallacies.)

  the sad part is that most of the people here don't even know what a stram man or ad hominem is, even after they might click that link.

Actually I call people liars who put words in my mouth and tells others what I am "saying". Or after being told the facts, continue to post lies (see Popmetal or Charity. ie, "not civil war" or "world was behind us") Or if somebody is a hypocrite, I will do just that. Thanks.

Then you go on to insult the members on the board? Class act.....

[Sterlingdog]

Here's another teacher fired, this time for what she did outside of school:


Catholic School Teacher Fired For Volunteering At Planned Parenthood
Bishop Says Teacher's Participation In Abortion Procurement Is Morally Unacceptable


October 17, 2005

SACRAMENTO -- Some students don't know what to make of popular drama teacher Marie Bain's dismissal from her job at Loretto High School.

She was fired from the all girls school by Bishop William Wiegand after a parent sent in a picture of her escorting clients into a Planned Parenthood medical clinic.

'It's very disappointing," said Katharyn McLearan of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood says Bain volunteered once a week to help clients past abortion protestors who picketed here several times a week.

"It's very daunting to have people yelling at you and she was here to be a friendly face. She would wear a planned parenthood vest, just really welcome them in," said McLearan.

But, Bishop Wiegand's dismissal order said that Bain's, "public participation in the procurement of abortions is morally inappropriate and unacceptable."

"We can't have it," said Dom Puglisi, Catholic Schools superintendent.

Puglisi says teachers can hold private beliefs, but their public actions can't conflict with the teachings of the church.

"Parents have made a commitment to send their children to a catholic school so they have certain expectations on us," said Puglisi.

Bain's performance in the classroom was never in question. She got high marks for being a dynamic and passionate teacher."

A Loretto sophomore says weighing the actions of a popular teacher when they conflict with religious beliefs can be tough for many students,"you don't want to go against your faith, but then there's someone you really like and so it's hard, you don't know what to do."

Bishop Wiegand asked that Bain's dismissal be handled with dignity and sensitivity, but wanted it done quickly.
Copyright ? 2005, KTXL

[SLCPUNK]

Here's another teacher fired, this time for what she did outside of school:


Catholic School Teacher Fired For Volunteering At Planned Parenthood
Bishop Says Teacher's Participation In Abortion Procurement Is Morally Unacceptable


October 17, 2005

SACRAMENTO -- Some students don't know what to make of popular drama teacher Marie Bain's dismissal from her job at Loretto High School.

She was fired from the all girls school by Bishop William Wiegand after a parent sent in a picture of her escorting clients into a Planned Parenthood medical clinic.

'It's very disappointing," said Katharyn McLearan of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood says Bain volunteered once a week to help clients past abortion protestors who picketed here several times a week.

"It's very daunting to have people yelling at you and she was here to be a friendly face. She would wear a planned parenthood vest, just really welcome them in," said McLearan.

But, Bishop Wiegand's dismissal order said that Bain's, "public participation in the procurement of abortions is morally inappropriate and unacceptable."

"We can't have it," said Dom Puglisi, Catholic Schools superintendent.

Puglisi says teachers can hold private beliefs, but their public actions can't conflict with the teachings of the church.

"Parents have made a commitment to send their children to a catholic school so they have certain expectations on us," said Puglisi.

Bain's performance in the classroom was never in question. She got high marks for being a dynamic and passionate teacher."

A Loretto sophomore says weighing the actions of a popular teacher when they conflict with religious beliefs can be tough for many students,"you don't want to go against your faith, but then there's someone you really like and so it's hard, you don't know what to do."

Bishop Wiegand asked that Bain's dismissal be handled with dignity and sensitivity, but wanted it done quickly.
Copyright ? 2005, KTXL

Hmmmmm........

[Sterlingdog]

I understand that in private schools they can basically make up their own rules, as far as flags and stuff like that, even the morality thing, fine.  But what I don't understand is, aren't they still subject to the same fair employment rules as the rest of us?  I mean, I've fired a lot of people, and I can't just do it without giving them about 3 or 4 written warnings first.  I have to be able to prove that I told them that they were doing something wrong and give them an opportunity to change it.  The only exception is in cases of gross misconduct, like patient abuse or theft.  It sounds like this teacher was let go without warning.  How is that ok?  Won't they lose in an unemployment hearing?

[Surfrider]

Nope, they don't have to abide by procedural due process rules.  Absent sometime of illegal discrimination, they can basically fire at will. 

[Surfrider]

Actually slippery slopes are often times very valid arguments.

They would not be accepted in any formal debate, only talking head type shows use them.

my point is that a teacher, student or anyone else participating in activities at PRIVATE institutions must follow the rules set forth.

I already said that, and agreed.

I don't accept your analogy though.

I don't know where you get this from.  They are validly used every single day.  I have heard them used in many formal debates.

[Surfrider]

If anyone is really interested, I have a list of "Invalid Arguments" - Slippery Slope is number 15.? The rest of list is kind of interesting, if you like to debate people.? Hey, SLC - Strawman is on there too.?

http://www.intellectualloafing.com/activitiesfolder/beinformedfolder/invalidarguments.htm

I understand logical fallacies; however, I strongly disagree that a slippery slope argument is always invalid.  Wouldn't it be a slippery slope argument to have said that we shouldn't go to war because it might cause more terrorism, which would lower our opinion in the world, which would make other nations less likely to help us, which in turn might cause more attacks on the US?  I think all of these are valid parts of the discussion.  A slippery slope argument is one that looks at the possible consequences of an action, something I think is valid in almost any debate.  Sure sometimes it gets abused, but it is hardly equivilant to the others on that list.

[pilferk]

If anyone is really interested, I have a list of "Invalid Arguments" - Slippery Slope is number 15.? The rest of list is kind of interesting, if you like to debate people.? Hey, SLC - Strawman is on there too.?

http://www.intellectualloafing.com/activitiesfolder/beinformedfolder/invalidarguments.htm

I understand logical fallacies; however, I strongly disagree that a slippery slope argument is always invalid.? Wouldn't it be a slippery slope argument to have said that we shouldn't go to war because it might cause more terrorism, which would lower our opinion in the world, which would make other nations less likely to help us, which in turn might cause more attacks on the US?? I think all of these are valid parts of the discussion.? A slippery slope argument is one that looks at the possible consequences of an action, something I think is valid in almost any debate.? Sure sometimes it gets abused, but it is hardly equivilant to the others on that list.

It's not valid in any form of formal debate....because it's playing the "what if" game.? If you're saying that, in hindsight, you might be right when playing "what if", I'll agree.?Ditto if you're saying it's a tool of problem solving. The problem is, you can construct ANY situation with the "what if" game and say it's possible but be wrong, too, when hindsight kicks in.? That's why it's not allowed as an argument, unto itself, in formal debate.? When stating your opinion? Sure, knock yourself out, but realize you're as likely to be wrong as you are likely to be right...and that will be pointed out.

[Surfrider]

If anyone is really interested, I have a list of "Invalid Arguments" - Slippery Slope is number 15.? The rest of list is kind of interesting, if you like to debate people.? Hey, SLC - Strawman is on there too.?

http://www.intellectualloafing.com/activitiesfolder/beinformedfolder/invalidarguments.htm

I understand logical fallacies; however, I strongly disagree that a slippery slope argument is always invalid.? Wouldn't it be a slippery slope argument to have said that we shouldn't go to war because it might cause more terrorism, which would lower our opinion in the world, which would make other nations less likely to help us, which in turn might cause more attacks on the US?? I think all of these are valid parts of the discussion.? A slippery slope argument is one that looks at the possible consequences of an action, something I think is valid in almost any debate.? Sure sometimes it gets abused, but it is hardly equivilant to the others on that list.

It's not valid in any form of formal debate....because it's playing the "what if" game.? If you're saying that, in hindsight, you might be right when playing "what if", I'll agree.?Ditto if you're saying it's a tool of problem solving. The problem is, you can construct ANY situation with the "what if" game and say it's possible but be wrong, too, when hindsight kicks in.? That's why it's not allowed as an argument, unto itself, in formal debate.? When stating your opinion? Sure, knock yourself out, but realize you're as likely to be wrong as you are likely to be right...and that will be pointed out.

Sorry, but I still disagree.  I understand that it is speculation, but any decision requires one to consider the consequences of an action.  If the consequences are too off the deep end then refute the speculation.

[pilferk]

If anyone is really interested, I have a list of "Invalid Arguments" - Slippery Slope is number 15.? The rest of list is kind of interesting, if you like to debate people.? Hey, SLC - Strawman is on there too.?

http://www.intellectualloafing.com/activitiesfolder/beinformedfolder/invalidarguments.htm

I understand logical fallacies; however, I strongly disagree that a slippery slope argument is always invalid.? Wouldn't it be a slippery slope argument to have said that we shouldn't go to war because it might cause more terrorism, which would lower our opinion in the world, which would make other nations less likely to help us, which in turn might cause more attacks on the US?? I think all of these are valid parts of the discussion.? A slippery slope argument is one that looks at the possible consequences of an action, something I think is valid in almost any debate.? Sure sometimes it gets abused, but it is hardly equivilant to the others on that list.

It's not valid in any form of formal debate....because it's playing the "what if" game.? If you're saying that, in hindsight, you might be right when playing "what if", I'll agree.?Ditto if you're saying it's a tool of problem solving. The problem is, you can construct ANY situation with the "what if" game and say it's possible but be wrong, too, when hindsight kicks in.? That's why it's not allowed as an argument, unto itself, in formal debate.? When stating your opinion? Sure, knock yourself out, but realize you're as likely to be wrong as you are likely to be right...and that will be pointed out.

Sorry, but I still disagree.? I understand that it is speculation, but any decision requires one to consider the consequences of an action.? If the consequences are too off the deep end then refute the speculation.

I think I understand where the disconnect is here:

A slippery slope, as I understand it, is not: If this and this and this happen, this might happen or I think this will happen.  That's valid, provided, at least, you have some basis for your speculation (and, in the forum of moderated debate, the basis better be pretty strong).

It's more: "If this and this and this happen, this WILL happen", provided there are other possible outcomes.

Slippery slopes aren't about stating possibilities, they're about stating fact.

In other words, saying:

"If we sell stay puff marshmellows in Bermuda, everyone is Bermuda will get fat" is a slippery slope.

Saying:

"If we sell stay puff marshmellows in Bermuda, there's a possibility that everyone in Bermuda will get fat" is not.

Clearer?

[sandman]

If anyone is really interested, I have a list of "Invalid Arguments" - Slippery Slope is number 15.? The rest of list is kind of interesting, if you like to debate people.? Hey, SLC - Strawman is on there too.?

http://www.intellectualloafing.com/activitiesfolder/beinformedfolder/invalidarguments.htm

I understand logical fallacies; however, I strongly disagree that a slippery slope argument is always invalid.? Wouldn't it be a slippery slope argument to have said that we shouldn't go to war because it might cause more terrorism, which would lower our opinion in the world, which would make other nations less likely to help us, which in turn might cause more attacks on the US?? I think all of these are valid parts of the discussion.? A slippery slope argument is one that looks at the possible consequences of an action, something I think is valid in almost any debate.? Sure sometimes it gets abused, but it is hardly equivilant to the others on that list.

It's not valid in any form of formal debate....because it's playing the "what if" game.? If you're saying that, in hindsight, you might be right when playing "what if", I'll agree.?Ditto if you're saying it's a tool of problem solving. The problem is, you can construct ANY situation with the "what if" game and say it's possible but be wrong, too, when hindsight kicks in.? That's why it's not allowed as an argument, unto itself, in formal debate.? When stating your opinion? Sure, knock yourself out, but realize you're as likely to be wrong as you are likely to be right...and that will be pointed out.

Sorry, but I still disagree.? I understand that it is speculation, but any decision requires one to consider the consequences of an action.? If the consequences are too off the deep end then refute the speculation.

I think I understand where the disconnect is here:

A slippery slope, as I understand it, is not: If this and this and this happen, this might happen or I think this will happen.? That's valid, provided, at least, you have some basis for your speculation (and, in the forum of moderated debate, the basis better be pretty strong).

It's more: "If this and this and this happen, this WILL happen", provided there are other possible outcomes.

Slippery slopes aren't about stating possibilities, they're about stating fact.

In other words, saying:

"If we sell stay puff marshmellows in Bermuda, everyone is Bermuda will get fat" is a slippery slope.

Saying:

"If we sell stay puff marshmellows in Bermuda, there's a possibility that everyone in Bermuda will get fat" is not.

Clearer?

i disagree.

to me, slippery slope arguments are not cause and effect matters (as in your example). i think it's more a matter of "more of the same".

i know i'm not making sense so here's an example....

Statement: We should pass a law to provide personal data of sex offenders on the internet

Cause and Effect: If we pass a law to provide data on sex offenders is on the internet, they will face discrimination and possible violence from citizens.

Slippery Slope: If we pass a law to provide data on sex offenders is on the internet, then the government will want to post other personal records of criminal activity and we will slowly give up our right to privacy. 

[pilferk]

i disagree.

to me, slippery slope arguments are not cause and effect matters (as in your example). i think it's more a matter of "more of the same".

i know i'm not making sense so here's an example....

Statement: We should pass a law to provide personal data of sex offenders on the internet

Cause and Effect: If we pass a law to provide data on sex offenders is on the internet, they will face discrimination and possible violence from citizens.

Slippery Slope: If we pass a law to provide data on sex offenders is on the internet, then the government will want to post other personal records of criminal activity and we will slowly give up our right to privacy.?

Incorrect.  Or, rather, what they mean to you is not the widely held definition.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Slippery_Slope.html

[sandman]

i disagree.

to me, slippery slope arguments are not cause and effect matters (as in your example). i think it's more a matter of "more of the same".

i know i'm not making sense so here's an example....

Statement: We should pass a law to provide personal data of sex offenders on the internet

Cause and Effect: If we pass a law to provide data on sex offenders is on the internet, they will face discrimination and possible violence from citizens.

Slippery Slope: If we pass a law to provide data on sex offenders is on the internet, then the government will want to post other personal records of criminal activity and we will slowly give up our right to privacy.?

Incorrect.? Or, rather, what they mean to you is not the widely held definition.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Slippery_Slope.html

actually i think i'm right on. your link clearly states that they are "ILLEGITIMATE" use of the if-then idea. because they have nothing to do with fact. they are clearly speculation.

so although they are set up as if-then statements, they do not fit the "scientific" definition.

also, when making a slippery slope argument, the "then" part of the statement essentially takes the "if" part of the statement to an EXTREME level.

for example (per your link)....

if you ban SOME weapons, then ALL weapons will be banned.
if you gamble a LITTLE, then you will end up gambling ALOT.
if i make ONE exception, then i will have to make MANY exceptions.

(and for the record, i agree that slippery slope arguments are weak and i almost never use them.)

[pilferk]

actually i think i'm right on. your link clearly states that they are "ILLEGITIMATE" use of the if-then idea. because they have nothing to do with fact. they are clearly speculation.

so although they are set up as if-then statements, they do not fit the "scientific" definition.

also, when making a slippery slope argument, the "then" part of the statement essentially takes the "if" part of the statement to an EXTREME level.

for example (per your link)....

if you ban SOME weapons, then ALL weapons will be banned.
if you gamble a LITTLE, then you will end up gambling ALOT.
if i make ONE exception, then i will have to make MANY exceptions.

(and for the record, i agree that slippery slope arguments are weak and i almost never use them.)

No, you're not.? Read the definitions provided.? The drury link is a great definition.

They are not just "more of the same", which is what you said in your FIRST post.? They are illegitemate cause and effect (ie: if/then) statements (as you said in your 2nd post), for sure.? All of them.? Not just the "more of the same" versions.? Read the other examples provided (again, specifically at the drury link).

In addition, your 2nd example above is not the actual conclusion the example comes to.? The conclusion presented is that you will turn to crime.

"You should never gamble. Once you start gambling you find it hard to stop. Soon you are spending all your money on gambling, and eventually you will turn to crime to support your earnings."

It would be valid to say the "more of the same" arguments you're showing are slippery slopes, but not all slippery slopes are "more of the same".

Yes, they take on the form of logical (invalid) progression.? But that form of "logical progression" does not have to, necessarily, be "more of the same".

Edit: Or is your point just that my marshmellow example wasn't "long" enough of a slope?? It was just as much of a slippery slope, but the slope was implied (for brevity).? ?The "slope", so to speak, is actually the logical progression to get from point A to point H.? In my original example, point A would be the selling of Marshmellows, Point H would be everybody getting fat.? I elected not to take us through B,C,D,E,F,G because I thought peopel would get the point.

[sandman]

i think slippery slope is a figure of speach, is someone open to interpretation, and doesn't really have a specific definition.

(you know i'm bored at work when i'm on message boards idscussing semantics  )

[SLCPUNK]

i think slippery slope is a figure of speach, is someone open to interpretation, and doesn't really have a specific definition.

It does have a definition actually, that is why I said it's not really an argument.

[Guns N RockMusic]

i think slippery slope is a figure of speach, is someone open to interpretation, and doesn't really have a specific definition.

It does have a definition actually, that is why I said it's not really an argument.

SLC and Pilferk are right.  There is no room for interpretation here.  A slippery slope argument is an invalid logical equation.  I repeat. it's an invalid LOGICAL equation.  Opinion and feelings have nothing to do with it or affect whether it is logically valid.

[sandman]

i think slippery slope is a figure of speach, is someone open to interpretation, and doesn't really have a specific definition.

It does have a definition actually, that is why I said it's not really an argument.

SLC and Pilferk are right.? There is no room for interpretation here.? A slippery slope argument is an invalid logical equation.? I repeat. it's an invalid LOGICAL equation.? Opinion and feelings have nothing to do with it or affect whether it is logically valid.

again....you people take shit too fucking seriously. no one is writing a fucking disertation here. someone mentioned it in their post and we're describing it as an "invalid equation" in every day conversation, it's a figure of speech. we all understand what people mean when they say it. the over-analysis of people's wording in their posts is boring and such a waste of time.

[pilferk]

again....you people take shit too fucking seriously. no one is writing a fucking disertation here. someone mentioned it in their post and we're describing it as an "invalid equation" in every day conversation, it's a figure of speech. we all understand what people mean when they say it. the over-analysis of people's wording in their posts is boring and such a waste of time.

Says the person who has gotten all worked up because they weren't aware of the proper definition of a term.

Nobody expects everyone to know everything.? No one is personally attacking you because you didn't know.? It's really not a big deal.

I posted the links.? There is a specific, widely held definition (Notice, in my first post, I even said what you think it means isn't the widely held definition).? You didn't know it.? How about you just calmly, and in a civilized fashion say something like "Ah, I wasn't aware of that" and we'll move on?? It's really not THAT big a deal.

[sandman]

again....you people take shit too fucking seriously. no one is writing a fucking disertation here. someone mentioned it in their post and we're describing it as an "invalid equation" in every day conversation, it's a figure of speech. we all understand what people mean when they say it. the over-analysis of people's wording in their posts is boring and such a waste of time.

Says the person who has gotten all worked up because they weren't aware of the proper definition of a term.

Nobody expects everyone to know everything.? No one is personally attacking you because you didn't know.? It's really not a big deal.

I posted the links.? There is a specific, widely held definition (Notice, in my first post, I even said what you think it means isn't the widely held definition).? You didn't know it.? How about you just calmly, and in a civilized fashion say something like "Ah, I wasn't aware of that" and we'll move on?? It's really not THAT big a deal.

i was fully aware of what the statement means.

and your little explanation about FACT vs POSSIBILITY doesn't hold much weight in the real world use of the term. because it's always going to be an argument. nothing in the future is guaranteed as FACT. therefore, using the statement in an argument is speculative.