• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Fox News at it again. Tries to get gay english teacher fired because he was in porn

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zet

  • 7,690
    Posts
    16
    Years
    I hope he gets fired. Sorry, but teachers, especially these days, are expected to teach some form of morality to their students. I wouldn't trust this man to do the correct job of it. Due to his past actions, I would consider him to be completely unsuitable for teaching. Hell, any promiscuous person is unsuitable for the role.
    I completely agree with you that teachers shouldn't be allowed to have sex. But unfortunately it's illegal to spade humans.

    Bashing Fox News is a favourite past time of the left, and Zet started this thread doing just that. This isn't even something that can be contested.

    That said, all media outlets in the US are garbage, so it's not worth defending any of them.
    Actually it's a past time for any one with an ounce of intelligence to realize fox news is a horrible news source.

    And I agree.
     

    Mr. X

    It's... kinda effective?
  • 2,391
    Posts
    17
    Years
    I just love it how whenever someone takes offense to the actions of a group, another groups always says group A is bashing group C because they support group B.

    To all of you doing this, grow the **** up and try to look at this logically. All FOX has done is make a issue out of something that would never have caused a issue had it been left alone. He stared in 3 obscure porn movies? And parents are worried that their children will watch them? No. 99.9% chance that they never would have watched the movies that he stared. Even if the kids did, as a parent you should be more concerned about the fact that they are watching porn and not the fact that their teacher was a actor in the past.
     

    Shanghai Alice

    Exiled to Siberia
  • 1,069
    Posts
    14
    Years
    May I point out something that I find interesting?

    A few weeks ago, the media was abuzz with accusations that a man had inappropriate sexual contact with his employees. This was very important, as such a man is not fit to lead.

    However, when a teacher is discovered starring in pornography, there is nothing wrong with allowing him to educate children.

    In one case, the person is considered immoral and unfit to lead because of allegations with questionable evidence.

    In another, the person is defended from the vicious media claiming he is immoral and unfit to lead, even though solid evidence against him exists.


    What disgusts me more is that people's opinions are too heavily swayed by the words "Fox News" or "CNN". When did fact checking and forming opinions become less important than the name at the top of the page?
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    May I point out something that I find interesting?

    A few weeks ago, the media was abuzz with accusations that a man had inappropriate sexual contact with his employees. This was very important, as such a man is not fit to lead.

    However, when a teacher is discovered starring in pornography, there is nothing wrong with allowing him to educate children.

    In one case, the person is considered immoral and unfit to lead because of allegations with questionable evidence.

    In another, the person is defended from the vicious media claiming he is immoral and unfit to lead, even though solid evidence against him exists.


    What disgusts me more is that people's opinions are too heavily swayed by the words "Fox News" or "CNN". When did fact checking and forming opinions become less important than the name at the top of the page?

    There's a very, very large difference. If the teacher had been accused of starring in a gay porn with one of his male students, that would be much different. The argument here is that his past in pornography has no relation to how he is right now, while the man that you're referring to (going only by your statement because I don't watch the news) was bringing his problems into his work life and it affected his work and was related to his work.

    Although I'm curious - was this "inappropriate contact" a consensual act between two adults? Or harassment? If it's the former then it shouldn't have been a story in the first place and should not have been an issue, and if it's the latter then it's illegal so the analogy is flawed.
     

    -ty-

    Don't Ask, Just Tell
  • 792
    Posts
    14
    Years


    There's a very, very large difference. If the teacher had been accused of starring in a gay porn with one of his male students, that would be much different. The argument here is that his past in pornography has no relation to how he is right now, while the man that you're referring to (going only by your statement because I don't watch the news) was bringing his problems into his work life and it affected his work and was related to his work.

    Although I'm curious - was this "inappropriate contact" a consensual act between two adults? Or harassment? If it's the former then it shouldn't have been a story in the first place and should not have been an issue, and if it's the latter then it's illegal so the analogy is flawed.

    Yep, I was just about to say that. One is illegal and the other is not legal. It's like comparing a situation of bad parenting with a situation of child molestation, sure they both involve children, but the two things are in completely different contexts.
     
  • 14,092
    Posts
    14
    Years
    May I point out something that I find interesting?

    A few weeks ago, the media was abuzz with accusations that a man had inappropriate sexual contact with his employees. This was very important, as such a man is not fit to lead.

    However, when a teacher is discovered starring in pornography, there is nothing wrong with allowing him to educate children.

    ?


    For starters, you seemed to have missed the fact you're comparing sexual assault, which is, you know, a crime, with consensual sex, which is not.
     

    Shanghai Alice

    Exiled to Siberia
  • 1,069
    Posts
    14
    Years

    There's a very, very large difference. If the teacher had been accused of starring in a gay porn with one of his male students, that would be much different.

    I'm pretty sure that a felony would change things, so you do have a point.

    The argument here is that his past in pornography has no relation to how he is right now, while the man that you're referring to (going only by your statement because I don't watch the news) was bringing his problems into his work life and it affected his work and was related to his work.
    I fail to see how allegations of sexual harassment that supposedly occurred over a decade ago can interfere with a man's current bid for leadership.

    In case you have not figured it out, the man in question is (soon to be former-)candidate Herman Cain. Though I do not wish to get too far into that issue, I"m merely presenting the contrast. The mere fact that the name of the source was "Fox News" already painted people's opinions even before they read the article.

    Although I'm curious - was this "inappropriate contact" a consensual act between two adults? Or harassment? If it's the former then it shouldn't have been a story in the first place and should not have been an issue, and if it's the latter then it's illegal so the analogy is flawed.
    The analogy is not flawed. It wasn't meant to justify or vilify either man's actions, it was meant to criticize the reaction that people are having.
     

    jpp8

    Producer
  • 187
    Posts
    14
    Years
    • Seen Sep 19, 2013
    What am I even reading. A man *possibly* commits a crime, DOESN'T take responsibility for it, and don't see what this has to do for his bid in running the country? I can get into so many debates about Herman Cain, but this isn't the thread for it.

    And what reaction? That a NEWS NETWORK, not any private parties directly involved, dug up a man's past that he left behind, used it to defame him in his community, and that we're angry at the news network? I think it's a pretty dang good justified reaction to this whole thing.
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
  • 13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    I'm pretty sure that a felony would change things, so you do have a point.


    I fail to see how allegations of sexual harassment that supposedly occurred over a decade ago can interfere with a man's current bid for leadership.

    In case you have not figured it out, the man in question is (soon to be former-)candidate Herman Cain. Though I do not wish to get too far into that issue, I"m merely presenting the contrast. The mere fact that the name of the source was "Fox News" already painted people's opinions even before they read the article.


    The analogy is not flawed. It wasn't meant to justify or vilify either man's actions, it was meant to criticize the reaction that people are having.

    It is flawed. One is illegal. One is not. One is related to work (employees in the workplace). One is not. An argument by analogy is only as strong as the analogies are similar, and they're not similar enough to make the argument that it's people being swayed by Fox here.

    If the teacher had allegedly filmed gay porn with a student (even if the student was over 18 so it was legal), it would still affect his work and would be vastly different and evoke a different reaction from people. If he had allegedly harassed a student somehow involving his gay porn career (asking students to join in I guess?), then it would be different. But neither of those apply.
     
  • 5,854
    Posts
    18
    Years
    • Seen yesterday
    Hey guess what? Your parents had sex too! Does that give you the ground to not listen to them?
    How long did it take for you to come up with this terrible strawman argument? It's so bad I think it was intentional.

    According to the bible, Jesus hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, and all other sorts of immoral people. Because they were immoral in the past means that they can't have morals in the future?
    That is an excellent point. I hope this man has moved on from his immoral past, but I ain't gonna hold my breath.

    Cool slippery slope fallacy bro. Are you saying that we should forsake understanding and acceptance just to have "good old fashioned Christian values"? Government and school do not exist to force religious beliefs and values on students.
    Ain't a fallacy if it's been real and happening. Unless you're going to deny that children are more promiscuous than ever, and it is openly promoted?

    I specified "Catholic" schools there. Parents send their kids to such schools to teach them Catholic values.

    Well, technically, these were formal adult dvds which meant that they were usually only (legally) available in adult stores. I'm not saying that he shouldn't expect them to be private. He should expect that others would respect his decision to remain anonymous though (Hytch Cawke). Hogan obviously didn't want to acknowledge that part in his life any longer, caused no one any immediate harm, and was certainly within the realms of legality. Why should we not respect his decision to remain anonymous?
    Anonymous? He was never anonymous.

    Yeah, let's go fight more pointless wars against other for the sole sake that they are different than us, damn commies. Let's just hate everyone for the sole sake that they are different than the white man. Women should get a husband, stay at home, cook, and clean. Men should be the sole income earners of the household. Everybody is straight. Girls play with the girls and boys play with the boys. Stock market crash? Oh, just learn to make do with what you got. Utopian society right there.
    One man's utopia is another man's nightmare. That said, you described pretty much everything I'd want in a society :).

    If they weren't so fallacious, bigoted, and bashable in the first place...
    I wasn't defending them, just sayin'



    Not replying to the fired part because I honestly thing that's up to the school and I understand the arguments behind "he should get fired" even if I don't necessarily agree.

    But I vehemently disagree with this. There are ways to handle things, respectfully. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, or that it's the right thing to do. I can walk out of my classes today and drop out of college to become a wanderer. But I shouldn't. I can go up to every person on campus and call them a slur of insults. But that's not the right thing to do. Yes, he's not breaking any laws by doing what he did (as far as I know at least). That doesn't make what he did right.

    If Fox was truly worried about the morals of the children, instead of splashing his face all over the news, they would have privately gone to the school district. The students didn't know he was a gay porn star before the report came out, and now every single one does know. That doesn't sound like protecting them whatsoever. It would be much more "protective" of them to go to the school privately, have the school remove him (assuming he gets fired) without any full-out explanation to the students, and they wouldn't know. That would be both the most respectful to the man (who still deserves respect regardless of what you think of his career choice) and the way to keep most children not talking about gay porn and their teacher.

    I'm not saying they had to keep the story to themselves. They could easily blur the man's face and not mention his name. That would both give them the fearmongering "THERE GO OUR VALUES" story while being respectful and retaining some shred of integrity.

    And tbh I don't care that it's Fox that did it. No matter what news outlet did it, it would still be wrong. I don't know why anyone feels the need to get into the Fox vs. Everything Else debate; it should be wrong no matter who did it.
    Well I really only came here to argue about morals in schools, but I do understand and agree with you. Everyone has their secrets, and sometimes it's best to just let sleeping dogs lie if there is no problem in the present time.

    But now that it's out, well, yeah.

    Teachers should uphold moral standards. The only way to objectively gauge what is moral and what is not moral is to look to statutes/laws. As I said before, one might think that Muslims, Jews, Homosexuals, Women, Blacks, and others should not be teachers because of some morality clause. Some may say that non-christians should not be allowed to teach. Moral standards can only be applied if they come from laws, period. Porn, whether it is gay or heterosexual is not illegal, and does not harm anyone.
    Morals =/= laws. Ever. Sometimes they overlap, and they can influence one another, but they are not the same.

    Deriving morals from laws just seems like working in reverse anyway. Nevermind that it's all an appeal to authority. This is what you've just said: "If the government says it's legal then it's perfectly moral".

    If the government said killing your own children is legal, would you think it was moral?

    If the government said stoning adulterers was legal, would you think it was moral?

    You need to really reconsider your views on morality first and what morals are.

    The 1920's? Alright, apparently you want to live in a world in which women and blacks could not vote, or live their lives as they pleased. The majority of people were poor and over-worked, many of which were starving. It was a hard life for most.
    Everyone voting is a bad thing, but that's not a topic for this thread. Neither is the dishonest garbage you present as history.

    So you oppose any heterosexual sex that is not intent on child conception? Alright let's try to mandate that condoms and birth control be outlawed then.
    Yes I do.

    Anyway, this should not be an issue of sexuality; it should be whether or not a person who performed in a porn, a legal act, should be able to be a teacher.
    I agree. If it was up to me I would not hire them.


    So if a teacher had sex the night before school, you would call that person unsuitable to teach you or anyone in the world, despite if they can actually make children interested in learning? That must mean every teacher in the world is not suitable to teach in your eyes just because they did something that is human. People don't need to know about the private life of EVERYBODY in the world. It is not our business to judge them on that.

    The important thing is that the students like this guy and believe that he is an amazing teacher. They like him for what he must have done in the classroom. There are not many people like that in schools today. Just because he starred in gay pornos is nobody's business. Not mine, not yours, not Fox News, it's NOBODY'S business. All these dudes at Fox are doing is making a mountain out of a very small molehill that is really nobody's business. This is pretty much invasion of privacy.

    You make it sound like a person with morals is better than anyone who lives their life to their own rules.
    Teachers, regardless of whether or not they are aware of it.

    To not be able to control ones urges is to be like an animal. I'm not going to say I'm perfect, nor am I better than anyone else, but without self-control you're no better than animals.

    I'd say it's the business of parents who are concerned about what their children are learning.

    You make it sound like they're worse. Who are you to judge? I thought it wasn't our business to judge, according to you.

    I completely agree with you that teachers shouldn't be allowed to have sex. But unfortunately it's illegal to spade humans.

    Actually it's a past time for any one with an ounce of intelligence to realize fox news is a horrible news source.

    And I agree.
    Actually I'd disagree with spaying anyone. As strong as my views are, I still hold most high that people should have a choice.

    It sometimes presents a valid alternative view that is sometimes necessary. I'd be worried if all the media outlets said the same thing.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top