|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Examples of abuse include an annual midnight band practice at Ohio Stadium in which men and women were expected to march wearing only their underwear. In one recent year, a student suffered alcohol poisoning at the practice. Students led the rehearsal, but staff members, including Waters, were there, too. Some other traditions: All new band members, or “rookies,” were given nicknames, many of which were sexually explicit. Rookies were forced to perform “tricks” on command. In one case, a female student was told to imitate a sexual act on the laps of other band members, including her brother. Several witnesses said that students performed a “flying 69” on tour buses, in which band members hung from the luggage racks and posed in a sexual position. Waters was on the bus when that happened as recently as last fall, according to a band staff member who quit last year. The staff member told investigators she resigned from the band because Waters would not address alcohol abuse on that trip. An “unofficial” songbook was part of the evidence that investigators provided to university leaders, with raunchy lyrics set to school songs at other colleges. |
The only problem is : "Don't get caught!"
How many of you assholes have vulnerable daughters?
I don't think anyone suggested that.
All that was suggested is that the reason for the firing was liability, not morality.
this guy saw college adults being college adults doing things college adults do and let it go.
should he be fired? yeah, you can chose that. but it's nothing like Paterno.
Quote:
You may want to read Matthew again.
Turning the other cheek is about non-retaliation, answering hatred with love.
The verse is:
Quote:
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Easily misinterpreted to mean what you (and most) think.
If you think about it, though- to be slapped on the right cheek would mean the "evil person" is striking you with his left hand. Not many folks strike with their left hand.
Unless of course you are being back-handed- which is a way one would express to another that they are a lesser person (bitch slapped if you will).
The act of turning the other cheek and exposing the left side of your face rather than the right would force the person to strike you as he would strike an equal- with an open palm from the right hand instead of a back-hand.
So, yes- it is somewhat about non-retaliation, but I think it is more about demanding to be treated as an equal- not a lesser.
I have no proof of this other than it makes sense to me and I'm the only one I need to convince.
I guess this is your "Freedom of Speech"
No. No one compared this to Paterno. The comment was much more subtle.
It's the only one that comes with a guarantee. If you don't go to heaven after you die, all you need to do is fill out a notarized complaint form and I'll refund all tithes and donations.
Tithes are also very low, 1%.
And if you act within the next five minutes I'll throw in the amazing slap chop at no extra charge!
Hurry before supplies run out!
It's the only one that comes with a guarantee. If you don't go to heaven after you die, all you need to do is fill out a notarized complaint form and I'll refund all tithes and donations.
Tithes are also very low, 1%.
And if you act within the next five minutes I'll throw in the amazing slap chop at no extra charge!
Hurry before supplies run out!
Please stay on topic and quit attention-whoring.
However the leap some people take to bring up Paterno and campus rape is just insane.
However the leap some people take to bring up Paterno and campus rape is just insane.
For the record, YAJ was the only one who did this. Not his finest moment.
The incidents described cover sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and underage drinking. All are serious issues and not to be taken lightly. They seemed to have been willfully ignored by the director for a long time. His fate is not unfair or unwarranted.
Analogy: A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Equate: Consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Thanks. I really didn't think that needed explaining, but apparently it did for FEK.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Chris, I made a point to say that I understand the principal/point he was making, technically, was fair... but making that comparison will inherently draw the actual offenses to each other as well, and he's smart enough to know that.
Quote:
was comparing the turning the other cheek (sic: looking the other way) aspect of the Paterno incident, not the incident itself.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Chris, I made a point to say that I understand the principal/point he was making, technically, was fair... but making that comparison will inherently draw the actual offenses to each other as well, and he's smart enough to know that.
No one else took my comment and ran in the wrong direction with it.
Mike in Long Beach : 7/24/2014 3:06 pm : link : reply
You can't be serious with that comparison (and I'm normally all for equating two situations, even one is far more extreme, when the principle is the same).
Your analogy was coherent, but you have to know that it's far more acceptable to look the other way in some situations and some it is morally reprehensible. So even though your principal held water, you chose an example that was so extreme that it rendered your point disingenuous.
Now this is just flat out wrong.
Quote:
was comparing the turning the other cheek (sic: looking the other way) aspect of the Paterno incident, not the incident itself.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
Chris, I made a point to say that I understand the principal/point he was making, technically, was fair... but making that comparison will inherently draw the actual offenses to each other as well, and he's smart enough to know that.
So basically YAJ should dumb down his analogies so that people who are shitty at interpreting analogies don't misinterpret him? Is that really the standard we want to impose on discourse?
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
oops! sorry chris. that's not the appropriate usage of "sic."
maybe you should spend less time criticizing my lack of capitalization and more time actually, you know, understanding how to speak and write in English?
Quote:
was comparing the turning the other cheek (sic: looking the other way) aspect of the Paterno incident, not the incident itself.
Back to the SAT analogy study section folks.
oops! sorry chris. that's not the appropriate usage of "sic."
maybe you should spend less time criticizing my lack of capitalization and more time actually, you know, understanding how to speak and write in English?
This is the perfect thread to compare my misuse of a rarely used Latin word with your chronic poor punctuation practice (i.e. laziness).
fair point.
fair point.
It surely does reflect better on you that you are too lazy to capitalize and that I may have slightly misused sic. Kudos.
But I'm actually not willing to concede that I've misused sic that easily. It is used to denote that an error is being reproduced from the original. Kindly point out how I've misused it.
Or if you'd rather, we could meet and throw down about it.
but somehow you still don't understand how this:
of course you don't. if you did, then you'd have to admit you were wrong.
Focus, people.
Well fucking no. That's just ridiculous. And while Mom's point is that just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean it's smart or you should, it's still a ridiculous assertion.
Just like YAJ's comparison of the OSU Band Director looking the other way to college kids fucking around too much and Paterno looking the other way as one of his coaches raped little boys... is fucking ridiculous.
Believe it not fellas, an analogy can be logically coherent and still be silly when the two things being compared are so drastically different. But to play the BBI game, no YAJ, I do not find it OK that Paterno looked the other way, but, from a moral standpoint, I do find it OK that the OSU band director did (though other posters have brought up very reasonable points about the liability angle).
Wrong.
This has been fun!
Link - ( New Window )
Well fucking no. That's just ridiculous. And while Mom's point is that just because someone tells you to do something doesn't mean it's smart or you should, it's still a ridiculous assertion.
Just like YAJ's comparison of the OSU Band Director looking the other way to college kids fucking around too much and Paterno looking the other way as one of his coaches raped little boys... is fucking ridiculous.
Believe it not fellas, an analogy can be logically coherent and still be silly when the two things being compared are so drastically different. But to play the BBI game, no YAJ, I do not find it OK that Paterno looked the other way, but, from a moral standpoint, I do find it OK that the OSU band director did (though other posters have brought up very reasonable points about the liability angle).
You're just part of that twisted OSU marching band cult mentality.
History
Panty raids were the first college craze after World War II, following the 1930s crazes of goldfish swallowing or seeing how many could fit in a phone booth.[1] The mock battles which ensued between male and female students echoed the riotous battles between freshmen and upperclassmen which were an annual ritual at many colleges in the 20th century.
The first documented incident occurred on February 25, 1948, at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois. Around 260 men led by the Omicron Sigma Omicron fraternity entered the Woman's Building (now Emmy Carlsson Evald Hall, a classroom building); the first party entered through heating tunnels beneath the building. Once inside, they unlocked the door for the remaining raiders to enter, locked the housemother in her apartment, and cut the light and phone lines. Although a few women reported missing undergarments, the goal was to cause commotion. The police arrived, and although no pranksters were charged, the news traveled, making headlines in the Chicago Tribune, Stars and Stripes, Time magazine, and the New York Times.[2][3][4]
The next incident was on March 21, 1952, when University of Michigan students raided a dormitory, which sparked panty raids across the nation.[5] Penn State's first raid involved 2,000 males marching on the women's dorms on April 8, 1952, cheered on by the women, who opened doors and windows and tossed out lingerie.[6] By the end of 1952 spring term the "epidemic" had spread to 52 campuses.
History of Panty raids - ( New Window )
Right, and that's not what it says either. You conveniently left out the "might otherwise be taken for" part.
I feel like whenever I quote you I should use (sic) just to be safe.
that's actually a very common typo, right behind "it's" instead of "its." happens all the time. in fact, my iPhone auto-corrects to "look the other way" when i write "turn the other cheek" because it's so common.
I feel like whenever I quote you I should use (sic) just to be safe.
wow, you're not actually this dumb, are you? in your case, maybe.
"might otherwise be taken for an error in transcription" = somebody mistyped something so you are correcting them.
YAJ didn't mistype anything. he used a phrase incorrectly. that's not what sic is for. it's not a matter of opinion. is this getting past your concrete skull yet, or do you need me to keep schooling you?
I have no idea how sic is used because I never used it. Probably never will. But it seems like you should have went for the solid double instead of swinging for a home run.
Quote:
Right, and that's not what it says either. You conveniently left out the "might otherwise be taken for" part.
I feel like whenever I quote you I should use (sic) just to be safe.
wow, you're not actually this dumb, are you? in your case, maybe.
"might otherwise be taken for an error in transcription" = somebody mistyped something so you are correcting them.
YAJ didn't mistype anything. he used a phrase incorrectly. that's not what sic is for. it's not a matter of opinion. is this getting past your concrete skull yet, or do you need me to keep schooling you?
I used sic to indicate that I knew what I was paraphrasing was incorrect. That is textbook sic.
so, to answer my question from before, yes, you are this dumb. thanks.
but i'm sure you knew that already.