by Sam Whiskey 469 Replies latest jw friends
Either he ripped up the pre-approved speech and thus went back on the agreement to give it OR he pretended to rip up a speech to give the appearance of not following it to the audience.
Either way, he deceived someone.
The simplest explanation is that it's the former, as was actually reported and as fits the evidence of the school policy which his speech didn't adhere to and from common bloody sense that they don't allow anyone to say "anything at all" (hence the term "APPROVED")
-
The whole point of the video is that he "ripped up the preapproved speech and recited a prayer instead.
"The act was apparently in protest of the Pickens County School District’s decision to no longer include prayer at graduation ceremonies, Christian News reported. Officials said the decision was made after the district was barraged with complaints by atheist groups."
So, if it was pre-approved and he had said he was going to present it (which I don't need evidence for, it's obvious this would be the case), I think he was dishonest if his intention was not in fact to present it at all as the video is evidence of.
Simon,
I can see what people are making of the incident. I’m looking for evidence proving what people are making of the incident.
Specifically I’m looking for evidence the speaker lied or pulled a fast one, as though he acted inappropriately.
Who says the speaker had agreed or had to agree to deliver and only deliver a preapproved speech?
Who says this? Who?
Who says the speaker was forbidden from sharing his personal religious view?
Who says this? Who?
People making accusations of dishonesty have a burden to prove those accusations true.
Marvin Shilmer
I said my research was the basis for my prior comment about the video. That's why I made the comment I did.
“I did further research and based my prior comment on that research.”
Who says the speaker was forbidden from sharing his personal religious view?
"The act was apparently in protest of the Pickens County School District’s decision to no longer include prayer at graduation ceremonies, Christian News reported. Officials said the decision was made after the district was barraged with complaints by atheist groups."
Marvin: The guy giving the speech made the accusation when he ripped it up.
You don't need to have signed a formal agreement to have agreed to abide by the guidelines that are understood.
To anyone else, it's obvious.
Who says the speaker had agreed or had to agree to deliver and only deliver a preapproved speech?
Who says this? Who?
The school district, the speaker (implied through ripping up his speech), the reporter.
Who says the speaker was forbidden from sharing his personal religious view?
Who says this? Who?
The school district, the school, the speaker, the audience, the reporter, anyone who watched the YouTube video and everyone else except you.
People making accusations of dishonesty have a burden to prove those accusations true.
Go on then. Prove we're lying.
Simon:
You don't need to have signed a formal agreement to have agreed to abide by the guidelines that are understood
--
Apparently this good Christian valedictorian, in his myopic attention on the Lord's Prayer, didn't have time to look in the previous chapter to notice this verse:
Mt 5:37: "Just let your word Yes mean Yes".
This, aside from the fact that his ripping up the speech was an act of PROTEST. He knew full well he was breaking an agreement.
Apparently some Christians feel no obligation to honor their agreements, written or verbal.
-
Simon,
I hesitate to respond given restraints levied on me by you that I don’t understand.
If what follows is taken as off-topic or anyway contrary to forum guidelines, it’s unintentional.
“The school district, the speaker (implied through ripping up his speech), the reporter.”
Without presupposing it, I have seen no evidence that the speaker agreed or had to agree to deliver and only deliver a preapproved speech, whether in writing or otherwise.
I can see you assert the school district required this agreement, and I can see your assertion that the speaker agreed to this. But saying this is so does not make it so. I’m looking for evidence; not speculation.
“The school district, the school, the speaker, the audience, the reporter, anyone who watched the YouTube video and everyone else except you.”
I don’t see where any reporter asserted a student was forbidden from sharing his or her personal religious view, and you have not shown this. Quote the reporter who says this. Quote the school official who says this. Certainly the YouTube video given at the beginning of this discussion offers no such information.
“Go on then. Prove we're lying.”
I’ve not asserted you or anyone else here has lied. Hence I fail to see why the request that I prove you or anyone else here is lying.
I’ve asked for evidence of assertions made.
About the closest thing to evidence in support of the claims above is an apparent position taken by the school system “to no longer include prayer at graduation ceremonies”.
A school system adopting that position has not adopted a position prohibiting students from expressing their personal religious view.
Moreover, for a student to take it upon him or herself to share their personal religious view at a school event is not necessarily an act of the school system including prayer at a school event. This school system policy dictates what it endorses and/or includes. This school system policy does not prohibit what students do with their personal freedom of speech. The school system has taken a neutral stand on religion, which it should, and it has taken a stand against endorsing and/or including religious display.
Marvin Shilmer
I’m looking for evidence; not speculation.
Evidence has made no difference with you up to this point.
"The act was apparently in protest of the Pickens County School District’s decision to no longer include prayer at graduation ceremonies, Christian News reported. Officials said the decision was made after the district was barraged with complaints by atheist groups."
I hesitate to respond given restraints levied on me by you that I don’t understand.
Really? Wow.
And I thought the OP was dense.
-
“Either he ripped up the pre-approved speech and thus went back on the agreement to give it OR he pretended to rip up a speech to give the appearance of not following it to the audience.
“Either way, he deceived someone.”
Simon,
Ripping up a pre-approved speech is not evidence of prior agreement to give that speech and nothing but that speech. Ripping up a pre-approved speech is only evidence that a pre-approved speech was ripped up.
I’m not saying this sarcastically.
The primary reason a school system asks to receive a speech prior to delivery is for the purpose of limiting liability by having proof of what they endorsed in case someone complains of the school system after the fact. I’ve never seen an instance where a graduate student was held to an agreement to give and only give what was put to paper prior to the speech. In university settings such a request would be met with contempt by students!
In the end a speaker carries the burden of what he or she says, and no one else. That is, unless someone else endorsed (preapproved) what was said. It looks to me like participants have a hard time separating relevantly dissimilar things.
Exercising freedom of speech is not an act of dishonesty, though as we've seen insinde this very discussion there is a burden or responsibility for whatever is said.
Marvin Shilmer
