E
EndTimes
Guest
Exactly… …
Chaperones lead Catholic schoolgirls out from "Nutcracker Suite" performance with same-sex roles, causing criticism, agreement
- Status
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
That won’t change much.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
B
Barnesy
Guest
Thats non sense. A lot of the pupils and the parents from the school were very vocal in support of gay rights after the incident. It had the opposite affect than what was intended. How is complaining that the girls were not allowed to see the play not connected with the fact that the girls were not allowed to see the play?? How is the fact that they were not allowed to see a play with a gay couple in it not connected with all the comments pupils then made is support of gay rights immediately after wards??? You do know what post hoc means?Barnesy:
post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
You have no evidence that this incident in any way changed any of the students minds.
You are falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
B
Barnesy
Guest
Thats right it wont change as long as catholic schools teach about respect and not excluding people because of their sexual preferences which they have no choice.
Your argument is one of claiming the opposite of what was intended happened.
You have no evidence at all that this is the case.
At best, you can claim some of the girls were vocal of support for gay issues after the incident.
But that is a far cry from shaping these girls minds the wrong way. If anything, it is an indication that their minds were already made up.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
B
Barnesy
Guest
Even the title of the article called the reaction a backlash. Lots of parents and pupils said it was wrong. Was that a smart move?? You tell me.Barnesy:
You have no evidence that this incident in any way changed any of the students minds.
You are falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
B
Barnesy
Guest
If they wanted their girls to not support gay rights and after they were told they couldnt see the play so many of them actively came out in support of gay rights and even painted their ‘support rock’ in gay rainbow colors do you think it worked out ok?? You can post hoc all you want but by telling the girls they couldnt see the play only encouraged active support for gay rights.Barnesy:
Your argument is one of claiming the opposite of what was intended happened.
You have no evidence at all that this is the case.
At best, you can claim some of the girls were vocal of support for gay issues after the incident.
But that is a far cry from shaping these girls minds the wrong way. If anything, it is an indication that their minds were already made up.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
B
Barnesy
Guest
Smart moves are moves that end up with what you want not the opposite of what you want. If you tell girls thay cant see a play with a gay couple because thats wrong and they end up vocally supporting gay rights because of that and its reported for all to see then thats the opposite of what you want so its not a smart move. I think anyone can see that.
Again, your claim is based on the false idea that these girls minds were made up as a result of the incident. We see no evidence of this. What we do see is evidence that she girls already were in support and are being more vocal.
This is not a causal relationship.
Your argument is based on assumptions without evidence.
B
Barnesy
Guest
This also has nothing to do with what happened. The waking out is not disrespectful. It is also not exclusionary.
By the way, the Church is supposed to exclude non-repentant sinners.
[/quote]
Its not exclusionary? You cant see a play if its got a gay couple in it and you think thats not exclusionary? If thats what you think then ok.
By the way, the Church is supposed to exclude non-repentant sinners.
[/quote]
Its not exclusionary? You cant see a play if its got a gay couple in it and you think thats not exclusionary? If thats what you think then ok.
“Because of it”?
You have no evidence that their support was a product of this incident.
B
Barnesy
Guest
No my claim that the girls were more active in their support for gay rights is because they were actually more active in their support for gay rights because of what happened. Its the reason for the article. Its the reason for this thread. If you think it worked out ok then carry on doing the same thing.Barnesy:
Again, your claim is based on the false idea that these girls minds were made up as a result of the incident. We see no evidence of this. What we do see is evidence that she girls already were in support and are being more vocal.
This is not a causal relationship.
Your argument is based on assumptions without evidence.
Then you have to cough up evidence that the purpose in walking out on the show was to suppress their support of the gay agenda.
A
Annie
Guest
Not necessarily.
As Catholic chaperones, the adults did what was right to do. Whatever the results may have been, that was the right thing to do.
Suppose I were a chaperone o middle school public school children who were supposed to see a talk, and it turned out David Duke or Richard Spencer had been asked to replace the originally scheduled speaker?
Would it be all right for me to let the students listen to them, or better to take them out?
Suppose afterwards, a lot of the more vocal parents and students came out in support of racism? Oh, would that mean I had done the wrong thing?
B
Barnesy
Guest
Its in the article. You obviously havent read it. Their actions in support of gay rights was prompted by them not being allowed to see the play. They may have supported gay rights before but they were very vocal in their support after. And now every one knows that. Keep on doing things like this and thats the reaction youll get.Barnesy:
“Because of it”?
You have no evidence that their support was a product of this incident.
B
Barnesy
Guest
In this case obviously yes. Hence the ‘backlash’ and the students social media complaints and the painting of their ‘support rock’ and parents complaints and the head of the school apologising and the article itself. If you think that was what everyone wanted then it was a smart move. If its just what they didnt want then it wasnt a smart move. But if you think its ok then keep on going these things.Barnesy:
Not necessarily.
Well.
You keep claiming an opposite affect happened than the one they intended.
This means you are claiming the purpose in walking out of the play was to suppress this support.
You have no evidence of this.
B
Barnesy
Guest
They are catholic students in a catholic school. Are you saying they are not catholic because they support their catholic schools aim to be inclusive of those who are gay? Thats all the girls have been doing. Do you think the school should exlude those who are gay?
- Status