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.
