The Engage Family Blog

Official Blog of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Professor Censors, Insults Student During Speech

with 79 comments

I wish I knew what went through the minds of far-left liberals just before they opened their mouths to speak. You will too after hearing about the Los Angeles City College professor who called his student a “fascist bastard” during the students’ speech on marriage.

 

In a story reported by Citizenlink, and on the website freerepublic.com, the Alliance Defense Fund is suing the Los Angeles School for censorship and threatening to expel a student after Professor John Matteson abruptly ended the speech of student Jonathan Lopez for sharing his views on marriage and faith.

 

But that’s not all, according to the article,

 

“Instead of allowing Lopez to finish, Matteson told the other students they could leave if they were offended. When no one left, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez’s evaluation, ‘Ask God what your grade is.’”

 

I won’t even pretend to hide my disgust and disdain for such atrocious behavior. This is a man who is supposed to be an adult, an example of what it means to foster free speech in what is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, our college campuses. But instead he retrieved to name calling, and childish insults.

 

Now, had that been a Muslim student sharing, no such incident would have occurred. And had the student shared views that the Professor agreed with, no such incident would have occurred. But because Jonathan Lopez shared his own personal views during an assignment which afforded him the freedom to do so, he was called names, insulted, and later threatened with expulsion. As the article reports,

 

“One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college’s dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that  he would make sure he’d be expelled from school.”

 

At what point does the free exchange of ideas cease to exist? Where does the ability to have independent, personal thoughts and views end? And when does it become right for anyone, let alone a teacher in a classroom, to penalize and discriminate against a person just because his or her ideas are different?

 

ADF Senior Counsel David French said correctly,

 

“Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech. This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor’s assignment when he was censored and ultimately threatened with expulsion. Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez’s free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student’s religious beliefs.”

 

I would encourage Los Angeles City College President Jamillah Moore to remove Professor Matteson from her faculty. Such people have no place in a room with students. Students do not need to wonder if it is ok to speak their mind, or if they will be targeted by Professor Matteson the way Jonathan Lopez was. College classrooms need to be a place where everyone has the right to share their views, and feel comfortable doing so. Obviously Professor Matteson has not cultivated such a classroom.

 

Further Food for Thought:

Is Religious Worship on Campuses in Danger?

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Advertisements

79 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. What goes through the mind of a far-left liberal just before they open their mouths to speak?

    I’ve been studying this question for nearly 40 years and have the answer:

    Nothing

    don baines

    February 16, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  2. What a WORTHLESS PIECE OF HUMAN REFUSE this IGNORANT IDIOT is!!! He needs to SUED PERSONALLY so he NEVER has another dime to his name and has to live in the GUTTER, where HE BELONGS!! You GO Jonathan!!! Don;t let LOWLIFE CREEPS like INFANTILE johnnie affect you at all, they are the EPITOME of LOSERS!!!!!

    jim

    February 16, 2009 at 7:47 pm

  3. Amazing how these Christian pigs continue to attack us and stifle free speech or the publication of books they consider offensive, yet allow such religious pigs to make hate speech in class — and then hide behind Pat Robertson’s skirts.

    Attention planet Earth:

    JOHATHAN LOPEZ IS A FASCIST CHRISTIAN BASTARD.

    Ken Camp, Los Angeles

    Ken Camp

    February 16, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    • Attention:

      Ken Camp is a complete waste of human flesh, and would be worth more to society as a rotting bag of fertilizer.

      Lee

      July 15, 2009 at 10:56 am

      • RIGHT ON!!! As ROTTEN as he is, he would prob kill the plants that his fertilizer was used on!!! LOL!! What a LOSER, like ALL LIB DEM MORONS!!!!!!!!!

        jim

        July 15, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  4. It’s not quite that simple.

    For starters ADF selects cases by their PR appeal (they are funded by Focus on the Family). We have only heard one side of this issue.

    I was a collegiate debater. Personally, almost anything goes but there are students who are more easily offended. What are their rights? Suppose the student had said that Hitler was right about the Jews? Suppose he espoused the same views about marriage as a radical Wahabee Muslim? Might that alter your perspective?

    David Hart

    February 16, 2009 at 8:58 pm

  5. A supposed “learned” man – Matteson – in an institution of higher learning can’t respond to someone he disagrees with other than to call him names and intimidate and threaten him. Is this the best our education systems can offer? If Matteson’s liberal ideas are of such merit, then step up to the debate and let those ideas stand on their own merits. Matteson’s resorting to bullying his student is evidence of how bankrupt his ideas are.

    Steve

    February 16, 2009 at 11:22 pm

  6. We need to DELUGE this IDIOT’s institution officials,, so called professor, what a JOKE,,, with emails NOW!!!!!!!!!
    This ABUSIVE MORON should NOT be interacting with any Civilized people, let alone students!!

    jim

    February 17, 2009 at 1:15 am

  7. Freedom of speedh is perferectly at work in the profs claasroom until it disagrees with his latent homesexual views….then its on par with a hate crime…tsk tsk and you call yourself men and women of logic?

    Chuck Simmons

    February 17, 2009 at 1:29 am

  8. Well I guess we can all see what a small brained big mouthed person Ken Camp turned out to be, but he is a leftist from California and that is to be expected. The only real truth about free speech is this. Only unpopular speech needs to be protected. Nobody cares about popular speech. In reality what we have is a country that believes we all have the right to speak our minds, regardless of who disagrees with it. If you don’t like what I am saying, don’t listen. Of course leftists don’t listen to anyone but themselves anyway or they would realize how crass and stupidly narrow minded they sound.

    Just becsue I have a different point or idea doesn’t make it “hate” speech. That kind of knee jerk single response mentality is very common with people like Camp and Matteson. Johnathan’s teacher assumed he was the only one with the right idea and certainly expected a majority of the students to walk out when he offered them the chance to show they were affended by Mr. Lopez’s speech. When he realized no one was offened but him he realized he had just blundered in front of his entire class. He had exposed his narrow minded “damn you if you disagree with me” attitude exhibited by a majority of leftist college instructors. Having humiliated himself as a Facist B—–d himself (God I wish I had been there), Matteson could think of no better response than a 5th grader profane statement and a childish display of temper.

    My father was a college professor for 35 years and I will tell you he ALWAYS treated his students with respect and tollerance. He didn’t agree with their ideas most of the time, but he gave them the freedom and encouragement to speak out, especially when their ideas were NOT in agreement with the current “fashion”. That is what college is for. Young people learning to think for themselves, not being brainwashed by intolerant jerks. Maybe that was why when he finally retired almost 100 ex-students showed up to escort him to a farewell party. Do you think Matteson’s students would do that after his tantrum?

    I’ll close and say I agree with Nathan Cherry, Los Angeles City College President Jamillah Moore should not only remove Mr. Matteson, but rebuke him publicly in the process. The youth of America MUST be incouraged to look at social problems and bring to the discussion ALL sides and directions of thought. No longer should a small and stupidly narrow minded but crudely and loudly vocal minority bully America into agreeing with extreme ideas just because they call you names or say that if you disagree with them, you are a fascist. I’d love one of them to call me that to my face. Of course they never do. Face to face to stomp off, get 50 yards away and then yell a profanity as they run.

    Mike

    February 17, 2009 at 1:54 am

  9. Nice to see wisdom passed down generationally.

    Isn’t it odd that the only foul mouthed hate speech on this blogg site came from that Great Freedom Fighter from Los Angeles…..Ken Camp

    Chuck Simmons

    February 17, 2009 at 2:28 am

  10. The real shame is that, in a structured environment, it is spectacularly easy to eviscerate those opposed to same-sex marriage. Presumably, the professor had sufficient erudition to have done so. If the allegations are true then he used poor judgment.

    The law suit is preposterous. It’s simply another example of radical Christian right self-victimization. Moreover, this incident apparently occurred last November when emotions were running high. It’s hard to imagine much of a financial settlement and I seriously doubt that the professor will be fired unless there were prior incidents. However (having been the CEO of a JC myself), I doubt that faculty are tenured.

    So, this will rattle around the right wing echo chamber where a considerable quantity of feigned outrage will be evoked. Then it will quietly go away unless there is a confidential settlement.

    David Hart

    David Hart

    February 17, 2009 at 3:52 am

  11. I was in this class last semester with Matteson and HE was the fascist bastard. In his attempts to be fair and not a racist and non-discriminatory, he proved himself to be the MOST DISCRIMINATORY PERSON I HAVE EVER HAD THE DISPLEASURE OF MEETING. He made it clear that he very much disliked a speech a student did on not smoking (Matteson smokes) and he wouldn’t allow me to do a speech on the fallacies of the global warming fad, because, in his words, “it is SO real!”

    He was a child, a d-bag, and scared the hell out of me. He should have never been allowed to be a professor and should never, ever step foot in another classroom ever again.

    Shauna

    February 17, 2009 at 7:14 am

  12. Ken Camp and David Hart should be informed that it is spectacularly easy to eviscerate those in favor same-sex marriage. It doen’t take religion to do so, only knowledge.

    Unfortunately for them and their mis-guided rump-wrangling friends, knowledge is one crutial factor missing from their argument.
    Logic is the other missing factor, and without those atributes, their facist finger-pointing at morals, be they based on Christian foundations or just pure common sense, leaves them standing naked in ignorance.

    Yes, I hear you, boys; you have new clothes. Fine. Now, excuse me but the literal meaning opf your action is that you are facist bastards. Sorry.
    I didn’t make you that. You are that because of your actions. If you don’t care to be a F.B. then do what every human has the right; (but few have the ability)

    CHANGE.

    Morals are not a choice. You, Ken and David, either have them or you don’t. And from the way you write we conclude you don’t have morals. So please stop pontificating about your moral high-ground; you have none.

    You wouldn’t know a moral if it leapt from the floor and bit you in your STD-packing testicles.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 17, 2009 at 9:24 am

  13. Because the operating devise, (they think it’s their brain), is in their pants, it doesn’t take much to get those sodomites rattled!!! It’s taken several thousand years, but the scum from Sodom and Gomorrah have reared their heads again. But wait! It gets better! If STD’s and common sense don’t convince them….eternity in darkness might indicate that they got it wrong…again!

    Mark Gwynn

    February 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm

  14. […] teacher was oppressive and definitely was not one who encouraged free speech in his speech class. Professor Censors, Insults Student During Speech Family Voice […]

  15. While I don’t know all the facts, I am startled by the venom that the many Christians reveal on this blog. Very little calm thinking, but quickdraw comments about two bloggers who disagree with them. I thought we had freedom of speech that,even if we dont agree with it, should be respected . Your rantings are as egregious as the comments supposedly made by professor . I say supposed because to my knowledge none of you were there when the incident occured.Always best to learn the facts before commenting prematurely and exposing your own bias.

    Brian

    Brian

    Brian Rutledge

    February 18, 2009 at 12:37 am

  16. For the Avenging Angel.
    Why are you startled? The Believers are not the ones who started slinging the term “Bastard” IE Webster Dic. says of the word Bastard: “Illegitimate birth or inferior sham” …they were (No. 1) merely placing the word where in their belif system it belonged..

    (No. 2)You must have missed Shauna’s Post
    (4 Posts Ahead of you)
    She said she was Physically in that class last Nov. ..Wouldn’that make her an eyewitness to what happend as opposed to supposed knowledge, unlike you or I who are blogging off of a report we read.

    as to your peers…

    The Twin Towers of Cerbral Verbage are the two who are for Men sleeping with men, which, according to the Manual transcribed down through History, has been portrayed as a crime against nature itself…You or anyone else do not have to accept this as your belief, But we can and do. This is just a small part of what falls under our Freedom of Speech Rights.
    Unless one instills the Orwellean concept of Big Brother not approving that kind of thinking. Who but Big Brother would oppose that kind of Bibically Based Speech?

    America was founded Not to keep the Church out of the State…But to keep the State out of the Church That is what the definition of Church and State was set up to be here in America We have it completely backwards because we have been bullied and liberalized into thinking that the minorities have it right and that we should not only tolerate their thinking but accept it as ours…May it never be!!

    We must keep the Freedom of Speech open even to the people who whole heartedly disagree with us, even when it’s Jesus of Nazereth

    Chuck Simmons

    February 18, 2009 at 3:13 am

  17. Do you have a brain Brian??!
    Did you read the ABUSING SCUMBAGS student’s comment??! She was in his class!!!
    I also did some research on this LOWLIFE which confirms what was reported. Why didn’t you?? Maybe you did, but are of the same ilk as this worthless scum, consequently you agree with him!
    Just what part of this DESPICABLE SCUMBAGS behavior do you agree with??!!

    jim

    February 18, 2009 at 3:30 am

  18. Oh Jim, you are too kind. Brian is a type of “human” that thinks his freedom to speak also includes a requirement that we believe what he says.

    I have never seen the Red Sea. Yet I know it is there. A pilot rarely knows the intricate workings of his jet aircraft, yet he can fly it.
    The mechanic who knows that plane inside-out may not have the knowledge to fly it.
    To Rutledge, this would be referred to as “bais.”

    Unfortunately for him, words have meanings, and re-assigning a new meaning to words that already have definition and purpose isn’t the action of a “scumbag.”

    It is the action a liberal. It is what we expect from them.
    It defines them as who they are.

    Denial of fact does not mean fact does not exist, and to the rest of you; Never forget that! The enemy of humanity has a face and a name. Know that face and fight it where you find it.

    Those who can see the choice of good or bad, laid in plain black and white, and more, have time to contemplate, yet choose the side of pure-unmasked wrong are actually worse than that sad sad professor who spoke in anger and professional ignorance.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 18, 2009 at 11:12 am

  19. EOJ you are RIGHT ON!!! Scumbag and lib dem are synonomous! Thanks to their IGNORANCE, our Great country is being CHANGED into a third world country by their wonder boy the OBAMINATION!! They DESERVE it, unfortunately we will suffer along with the LIB DEM IDIOTS!!
    AKA matteson, the Socialist PIGS of his ilk!!

    jim

    February 18, 2009 at 2:31 pm

  20. EOJ you are RIGHT ON!!! Scumbag and lib dem are synonomous! Thanks to their IGNORANCE, our Great country is being CHANGED into a third world country by their wonder boy the OBAMINATION!! They DESERVE it, unfortunately we will suffer along with the LIB DEM IDIOTS!!
    AKA matteson, the Socialist PIGS of his ilk!!

    jim

    February 18, 2009 at 2:31 pm

  21. Is this the equivalent of a ‘skinhead blog’or what? I feel Neo Nazi sentiment raging all throughout.I love to hear you proclaimed christians use words like scum, scumbag, idiot with one hand and then claim to be lambs oF God with the other hand and then hide behind ‘ freedom of speech ‘. What transparency. You dont care about freedom of speech, but hide behind that principle to push your theocratic,angry and persecuted agenda.Your shrill and strident voice must be heard, because we do have freedom of speech in America. But your anger and name calling is anything but Christlike.It takes a person who is confident in his views to stand and rationally/calmly make their point.I did miss Shauna’s comment and it appears this ?teacher is way out of line, but when she descibes him as a fascist bastard and a d-bag, she just reduced herself to his level.I would recommend some of you take speech or debate classes rather than keep repeating how persecuted you are. if this is about freedom of speech-fine- then stick to that and pursue it and develope it further.but I suspect thats the limit of your knowledge of law so then you mix in religion and venomous namecalling. You send garbled messages except that you are motivated by your idea of freedom of speech,morality and your god.Thats what Hitler did. And remember, freedom of speech has limits or should I say consequences depending where and how it is expressed.Be honest and quit hiding behind your freedom of speech banner.You, like Mr. Lopez, simply want to push your religion and ideologies which is your right. Quit hiding behind ‘freedom’ issues. Brian

    Brian Rutledge

    February 18, 2009 at 6:23 pm

  22. I love how you LIB DEM WORTHLESS PIECES OF CRAP always make assumptions!!! I am NOT a Christian, but I am a NORMAL person who finds DESPICABLE behaviour by you LIB DEM SCUMBAGS, exactly what it is,, DESPICABLE!! See, I believe in saying it like it is and not flavor it with your PC CRAP that you spew from your IGNORANT mouths, so I don;t OFFEND you WORTHLESS LIB DEM IDIOTS!!!
    You uncivilized LIB DEM automatons are all for free speech as long as it is in line with your DEMENTED mindset, IF not then you DO NOT want free speech for ANY dissent!! ABUSING CRAP of your ilk, LOVE to intimidate those you can bully, ie: young college students, who you LOVE to pulverize with your ABUSIVE NEANDERTHAL BULLY tactics!!! Of course you JUSTIFY this DESPICABLE behaviour because if FITS in with your DEMENTED mindset!!!
    What WORTHLESS and poor excuses quasi-human beings you and this matteson carcass, and his ilk are!! OBVIOIUSLY that includes YOU BRIAN BOI!!! TYPICAL OF AN OBAMABOT!!!

    jim

    February 18, 2009 at 8:27 pm

  23. […] Professor Censors, Insults Student During Speech […]

  24. Jim,

    It’s not that I mind you “telling it like it is”, but it is your uneducated and crude penmenship that gives you away.”Shouting” your beliefs through prose reveals a lack of intellect, so why would anyone take you seriously. Your thoughts are repeated over and over and its obvious your ablity to express yourself is marginal, which usually means a low I.Q. or mental blocking do to anger and hostility.Take an essay and grammar course-it will help you immensely when it comes to expressing yourself cogently.Yelling the same mantra over and over again, gives away a defect that you will have a hard time overcoming.It’s called being shrill and common
    Brian

    Brian Rutledge

    February 18, 2009 at 9:02 pm

  25. Is this Ken Camp the same Ken Camp that is Treasurer for the Boy scouts of America in Los Angeles? Golly gee!!

    Kelly

    February 18, 2009 at 10:50 pm

  26. David, why in the world anyone presume that anyone defending this poor guy must be a christian? Don’t we have the right to hear awhat anyone says if we choose, (and sounds like the class was given the option to stand up and walk out in protest)and defend their right to do so, even if we don’t like it? I love to hear other viewpoints that may not be exactly like mine, it educates me, allows me t engage in dabate and keeps my mind alert. I encourage my children to do the same. But I would hate to see my children enter into their college years with the expactation tha their own thoughts, viewpoints and questions have to be within a particular realm of other people’s expectaions by the time they hit 18, gosh that’s when I did my best learning. This professor did nothing to engage his class in debate and respect for public speaking on the topic at hand. Why is he so afraid of this particular opinion? and regarding your comment: “radical Christian right self-victimization”; isnt that the same comment we heard from black racist in the past? Just substitute: “radical black militant self-victimization”. Easy to start spilling out those type of comments when you just don’t like what you hear.

    Kelly

    February 18, 2009 at 11:01 pm

  27. Wow,

    It is so interesting reading the range of comments regarding someone none of you know or have ever met. The actions of John Matteson were obviously over the line, and as a professional educator, he should be ashamed of himself and the manner in which he dealt with whatever the situation actually was. However, to hear you all speak with such confidence of certainty about his thoughts, intent, sexuality, politics, and intellect is absurd. Maybe you should stick to talking about the issue in general and avoid aspects of this particular event with which you have no understanding of.

    Professor of Speech

    February 18, 2009 at 11:35 pm

  28. Your soft liberalized tone of fear and loathing on this blogg site is worrisonme and without any scholarlly merit. I am going to answer you point by point… sorry some of the group gets a little excited; maybe they are not as polished as you feel they should be but you know what, at least you are hearing what they feel…get over it!!!

    There is no problem at all, with a certainty of truth, summing up the Proffessors Thoughts, Intents sexuality and intellect. Out of the mouth speaks the Heart

    His Sexuality Pro Gay and don’t you dare speak against it. or you will feel his wrath

    His thoughts that is an easy one you’re bastrd if you disagree with any of his rhetorical thinking

    His Intent was to subvert the same class he was paid to teach by censorship, and even more to his real intent .He wanted to explel Johnathan for his Free Speech

    And to his Intellect and ethics I will quote from Page 4 of the Official LACCD unlawful Discrimination for Students and Faculty “What are they doing to you ?Are they Calling you names or ignoring you? Are you not being told things that you would need to know to do your job…If this is what is happening to you and to others as well Report these persons To the College Compliance Office…These are the rules …the by laws of how Faculty and Students are to inner act…obviously you or the Proffessor of Cuss Class 101A never got that far into the rules of the game

    Both you and the Proffessor should Man up and do your homework!

    Chuck Simmons

    February 19, 2009 at 1:48 am

  29. CAPITALIZATION is an emphasis of Expression and has NOTHING to do with IQ, you pseudo intellectual IDIOT!! With a STUPID mule, it takes a 2 x 4 hitting the side of their head to get their attention,, the analogy fits you LIB DEM MORONS Perfectly!! I will put my education up against you “ostensibly intelligent” pseudo intellectual, self pontificating Fools anyday!!
    The SCUMBAG took advantage of his position to ABUSE his students that he is being PAID to TEACH, NOT ABUSE!!! Anybody who wallows in the gutter with such human refuse is NO better than him!!!!!! Obviously, you have made the choice to condone his DESPICABLE behavior!! Your action of defense, aligns you with those of his ilk!!!!!! You no doubt are one of SOCIALIST barry’s robots, that says it ALL!!

    jim

    February 19, 2009 at 5:15 am

  30. I guess the point I was trying to make was lost on Chuck.

    Instead of simply bashing someone personally (someone you have no personal knowledge of) for an obviously unprofessional reaction, I was trying to suggest that we focused on the issue at hand: what is censorship? Especially within higher education and specially within a public speaking class.

    Is free speech and public speaking the same thing?

    Is putting a time limit on a speech for class a sort of censorship?

    Is limiting topic choices for classroom speeches censorship?

    Is having certain research requirements for speeches an abuse of power?

    Is giving one speech a higher or lower grade than another speech wrong?

    I think these are questions that serve a real purpose and add much more to the conversation than simple personal attacks.

    And Chuck, I’ve more than “manned up” and since it is the very contract under which I have worked for 15 years, I have more than done my homework.

    I teach public speaking and have done so for most of my life. And believe me, I have a difficult time imagining anyone who takes it more seriously than I do. The very concept of “speech” in all its forms, is at the very core of my life’s work.

    Professor of Speech

    February 19, 2009 at 5:47 am

  31. I only have couple of questions for our dear Rutledge.

    “Cogently: “Appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; convincing.” Did you look that up?
    You are very cogent. You have certainly proved a point.
    Ours, to be specific. Thank you.

    Question: Why do you feel “Neo Nazi sentiment” from anyone on this blog? Was it something we wrote?

    Or have you gotten things turned about; The Nazi movement was a new social order, an experiment in liberal thinking where one group, using economic fear and social unrest, gave themselves permission to eradicate several other groups, go to war with neighbors, form alliances with other experimental liberal powers, and destroy half the world.

    It was not a religious organization at all.
    In fact, Nazism persecuted religion. Just as liberalism today does.
    Nazism placed liberal thought over all other thought, and your written views and Nazi thought are closely akin.
    Have you considered that? And just as the Nazi did, liberals, embodied by you, Rutledge, point the finger at religion.

    Quite frankly, it’s frightening.

    Jim does get wrought up and who blame him. Other than you, that is.
    Possibly he remembers the not-so-distant past where people just like you caused the death of millions of people, people just like us.
    In retrospect we asked “how could this happen? Why did people allow it?” Well, we have a hands-on-lesson right here on this blog. You have chosen the role of the Nazi, so don’t cry to us about your fears and visions of “Neo Nazi sentiment.”

    So the question: Which, in your opinion, is more important? To remember the past and fight that it never be repeated, or to take an essay and grammar course?

    In other words, does the glib skill to express your infinite intellectual bankruptcy trump the heart-felt but ill-penned observations of your bankruptcy?

    Jim speaks the truth to those who are capable of knowing it, and we hear him. He isn’t so illegible as you think.
    He has to believe that you can change, even if change is not in your power. We must have faith you can be a better man.

    I and all those like us can not dissuade all the people like you from your one-way road to hell. Many of you will hold your head high as you put the rifle to your brother.
    But unlike the Jews, the Gypsies, the Karen and the many persecuted peoples, the many that walked to the showers and the killing fields, the brick walls, WE REFUSE TO GO SILENTLY!

    That, Brian, is Eoj shouting.

    For us to refuse to confront you and slap you silly on this blog is like asking a pack of hounds to ignore a three-legged cat.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 19, 2009 at 6:50 am

  32. Professor of Speech, all your questions are valid, and good points for thought, granted.
    The value structured educational situations is not in doubt. We don’t question that.

    The focus here is, was action of Professor John Matteson justified?

    Your points don’t seem pertinent to what happened in this incidence.
    Only your first question is applicable, and only peripherally.

    The question, “Is free speech and public speaking the same thing?”

    This wasn’t a case where a student’s grade was marked down, or time over-used, or even an inappropriate choice of subject, at least from what we can discern so far. Maybe one of the people in the class can clear those point for us, but the focus of this blog corresponds to the professor’s behavior during and after the students speech. I

    t was not a public speech, by the way. It was a class assignment.

    I am sure you are aware of the difference? In the class-room, freedom of speech certainly DOES apply.

    Was Matteson, in your professional opinion, out of line to react the way he did? Did he abuse his position of power when he verbally abused a student in his care? Is it an action that you, given a similar situation, also indulge in?

    If you take your career as seriously as you say you do, take a moment to consider your answer seriously.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 19, 2009 at 7:17 am

  33. EOJ,

    Now I understand how it works: You, EOJ decide what is and is not appropriate and worthy of discussion. And you clearly did not read my posts or you would know what I was very clear about the fact that I believed John acted in a manner that was unprofessional. But, if that is the only focus, then you could have simply put up a poll and collected “yes” or “no” responses. And the endless stream of namecalling and ugly personal statements about Professor Matteson would have no place.

    And I do totally understand the difference between a class assignment and a speech given in a “public speaking” class. One is, in fact, a public speech and the other is not. This was a public speech, given in a public speaking class, before a rather captive and known audience. And what makes you think the broad rights associated with the first admendment fully apply to the classroom? Perhaps, you don’t fully understand what “freedom of speech” means.

    And I’m not sure what you mean “indulge” in your direct question to me. My instruction methods serve my students to the highest levels possible, and I feel justified in speaking from a position of great experience and expertise on this subject.

    My questions provide ground for actual constructive. But, if all you and the others want to do is call Professor Matteson a “fascist bastard” for calling someone a “fascist bastard” please do not let me or any real discussion get in your way.

    Professor of Speech

    February 19, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  34. Jim and Eoj are fools on this issue, but before you jump through the roof, let me give you the definition. A fool is someone who is deficient in judgement, sense or understanding.I would say finding the teacher guilty without hearing BOTH sides of the story in depth, makes you deficient in judgement(all people deserve equal time to present their side),sense and understanding(you cant understand it yet because not all has been told). That makes a person foolish or a fool on this issue.You guys have decidied to be judge, jury and hangman before all evidence is produced. The question is why do you jump so quickly and hard to judge without ALL the facts.Its because thats what people with srong ideologies do.And lets be honest-this kid got up and gave a speech filled with his own deeply religious sentiments and that is what you find abhorent because you want your brand of religion permeating in the class. but you hide behind the ‘ freedom of speech’ mantra.Come on admit it-you are upset because your ideology is challenged and not your desire to see freedom of speech preserved in this one case.Your core beliefs are being challenged and lashing out before all sides have spoken, makes you a fool in this case and unAmerican.
    I would say this, if the facts come out that the teacher overstepped his boundaries and verbally abused the student, he shouldnt be disciplined, but immediately fired.My main question is only why do you persist in getting on your soapbox before knowing all what transpired, Jim and Eoj ? Why ? Answer that one question please. Brian

    Brian Rutledge

    February 19, 2009 at 4:25 pm

  35. Only a FOOL would Ignore blatant evidence, your interpretation not withstanding! I would refer you to the previous analogy of the mule who needed to be hit on the side of the head to Wake Up!!
    This special piece of human garbage Obviously was exhibiting this historical behavior of Abusing students!! Did you read the personal account of one of this Scumbags other students and how he Abused his position to Exploit the young people who he is Supposed to be teaching, NOT subjecting them to his Neanderthal Abuse! Did you even read that?? Probably not, you LIB DEMS never want to face up to Reality, just float around in your little bubble with similar Idiots!
    You probably see nothing wrong with johnnie boy the despicable spoiled brat calling that young person, a fascist bastard either, do you?? I didn’t think so, being someone of your ilk!!! Typical Obamabot!!!

    jim

    February 20, 2009 at 1:02 am

  36. Obamabot. How clever Jim ! You seem very attached( or limited ) to the same simple rhetoric. The simplstic black and white world you live in indicates a very rigid,limited mindset-the same mindset one finds in a zealous, conservative Christian( or Islamic jihadist)-same thing just different in degrees. I hold to my belief that it isnt free speech that you care about, but that you want this young student and others to spew their far right christian views in all arenas. both public and private.Thats whats drives you.
    Brian

    Brian Rutledge

    February 20, 2009 at 7:19 pm

  37. There is NOTHING clever about it, you didn’t deny being an Obamabot and I would bet that that Scumbag prof is too!!! Birds of a feather flock together, or in this case, PIGS of your and johnnie bois ilk, wallow in the same LIB DEM MUD!!
    You IDIOTS find nothing wrong with that knuckle dragging Neanderthal calling that innocent young student every dastardly name he could summon from his small rotten and polluted brain!!! Despicable human garbage that he is!! Typical of you LIB DEMS and mindless obamabots!!!
    Oh and I am not an EGOMANIAC and add my name at the end, like you!! For your information that is redundant! Your name is at the top and we don;t have to be reminded that you are the author of your Mindless Moronic LIB Drivel!!!

    jim

    February 20, 2009 at 10:32 pm

  38. Jim,
    Whats the difference between a teacher calling a grown student a fascist versus you calling people who voted for Obama( or any candidate) scumbags without even knowing them. You’re doing the same thing, but only those who disagree with you are the scumbags. Jim can call people what he wants, but others cant. I see, its my view is the only view and all other views are scum coming from scumbags. Go ahead and tell us what you really think about people with different skin color than you. Be honest. I still suspect you are a skinhead with severe rascist and bigot viewpoints. Who else or what kind or person holds so much anger in than one of those two types of people.I bet your paranoid perception is that if people dont agree with you, they are scumbags. Nazi Germany ended over 60 years ago or at least I thought it did.

    Brian Rutledge

    February 20, 2009 at 11:00 pm

  39. Why would I not like whites?? I have no problem with whites or any other color. Like King said you judge people by their CHARACTER content, NOT their skin COLOR!! I could care LESS what johnnie boi’s skin color is! I judge him and all other people by their character, or in his case, LACK OF SAME and for you to Ardently defend such a piece of human refuse totally devoid of CHARACTER, puts you his class!!
    Typical of you LIB DEMS you play the RACE card, I have NO problem with barry’s race, but a BIG problem with his LACK OF CHARACTER!! I would have had NO problem with Condi Rice, Alan Keyes, Romney or Thompson. McCain is a DEM in Republican’s clothing, but he is LIGHT YEARS better than barry the Socialist as we NOW are finding out!! Of course it hasn’t dawned on you obamabots, but then most of you are too IGNORANT to even know what’s happening under your noses!!
    Your lack of even a modicum of intelligence doesn’t even allow you to see the difference between SCUMBAG johnnie boi’s ABUSE of a student with whom he has been entrusted and that student competently expressing his viewpoint WITHOUT the GUTTER language that spewed from that IGNORANT professors DESPICABLE mouth!! I am sure you LIB DEM obamabots equate GUTTER language with Character!! LOL!! Typical obamabots! Character and LIB DEMS of you, johnnie boi and barry’s ilk, are mutually exclusive!!

    jim

    February 21, 2009 at 12:56 am

  40. Oh, I feel so sorry for the student who was abused by the mean professor. Poor little Christian student who was trying to spew his religious delusions under the guise of freedom of speech. He just wanted the students and all people of the world to get on their knees and submit to his imaginary beliefs. The teacher called his hand and like most christians he went whining to others-in this case the law. He couldn’t even handle it himself-poor persecuted christian hiding behing freedom of speech.Oh, lets all shed a big tear for him. Shallow,Shallow,Shallow

    Brian Rutledge

    February 21, 2009 at 3:19 am

  41. LOL!!! TYPICAL of you LIB DEM SCUMBAGS, you try to make people believe that you are SOOOO concerned about rights and free speech, but if you HYPOCRITES talk long enough, your TRUE colors come out!!! You DESPICABLE LIB DEMS could care less about personal rights or freedoms, UNLESS it comforms to your LIB DEM DEMENTED MINDSET!! When you LOWLIFES are Exposed then you INTIMIDATE, resort to GUTTER language, like ole johnnie boi did and I have NO doubt you would do the same thing if you were in the same place!! It’s NO wonder you so Strongly Defend his DESPICABLE behavior, because it exactly coincides with your DEMENTED mindset as well!! All of you LIB DEM PIGS wallow in the same MUD HOLE!! Talk about SHALLOW, SHALLOW, SHALLOW and DESPICABLE!!!!
    TYPICAL OBAMABOT!!!
    By the way, you IGNORANT FOOL, it’s Christian!!!!! I know you are too much of an unlearned FOOL to know that, so I am helping you BTF ,, aka,, BRIAN THE FOOL!!!
    Spew your LIB DEM CRAP to somebody as IGNORANT as you, I am sure you can find another Ignorant fellow obamabot, that is NOT ME!!

    jim

    February 21, 2009 at 4:24 am

  42. I think I have been duped. ” Jim” is obviously a computer driven response machine with a few references( by the website) to make it seem personalized. I am so relieved to realise that, because its good to know a mass of cells that calls itself a human could spout such manure. Really a funny website ! Jim, I love you baby.

    Brian Rutledge

    February 21, 2009 at 5:31 am

  43. OK, Brian and “the Professor.” Step to the front of the class.

    First of all, I find it rude for both of you to “indulge” in name calling, (Professor, look the word up if you don’t know the meaning) assumptions that have no basis in what was written, or taking freedoms with evidence or lack of it that you deny to people on the other side of the issue.

    But if good arguments were based on rudeness or politeness things would be different.
    They aren’t.

    A good argument follows some simple rules.
    Mr. so-called “professor,” I reserve judgment on your credentials because you really don’t write or reason like a professor.
    You comment, “And what makes you think the broad rights associated with the first admendment (sic) fully apply to the classroom?” was very revealing, not only because of the spelling.
    The constitution applies to students in class or out, as well as liars sitting at a computer in their jammies.

    So, Please post your real name, degree and where you obtained that degree or where you teach.
    I will verify if it is fact or fiction.
    Then you can say “in my professional opinion.” Until then, shut up about you degree, ok?

    The argument fallacy called, “The Appeal to Authority,” in this case yours, is not valid.
    Furthermore, it is tiresome.
    On the internet anyone can be “a professor.” It doesn’t make you a professor.

    Brian, learn where the space-bar is.
    No, I don’t mean the place you go and drink your brains out or pick up young boys. You have serious issues with the written word. Solve them. Do you have a valid Green Card, by the way? You sound like a Scandinavian.

    Brian, you claim to feel sorry for the student Lopez.
    You don’t.

    You can’t see past your anti-religious prejudices, and you have acted as judge, jury and executioner in regards not only to Lopez but towards myself, Jim and everyone else that expressed outrage at Matteson’s behavior.
    You judge us, say we are bigoted Christians for standing up for the rights of the student.
    Well, if that may be true. But it doesn’t mean you aren’t doing the same thing, but you are doing it for negative social values.
    If this were Nazi German, you would be one of the quislings.

    My only response to such sputum from a moron like you is, “rest assured; if you were to be censured and threatened by ejection from this board, I would stand up and say the same thing; you have a right to say what you want to say,” just as Jim has the right to call you an utter moron and hate-monger for saying it. That, Brian, is freedom of speech.

    Besides, I would miss stomping the poop from you, if you were gone.

    I am glad you both understand how it works; I decide what is and is not appropriate and worthy of discussion.
    Like it or leave it.

    You said at one point that Matteson was out of line, and yet you defend him, based on the subject matter that Lopez choose. What does that make you? Well, it makes you a Fascist pig.
    If Matteson was wrong, he was wrong and stop schlarving his dode. If you don’t want people calling you a fascist, stop being one.

    And for those who wonder, NO this isn’t a court. We will not be able to prosecute Matteson for his action.
    But some one will.

    As for calling a fascist bastard a fascist bastard, it isn’t the calling of the name that identifies one for what he is; It is his action.
    I can call people fascist bastards all day long. Does that make me a fascist?
    No more than calling someone else an astronaut makes me an astronaut. So it is entirely possible for you to be a FB, for me to call you one, and yet, I remain clean as the driven snow!
    Amazing, isn’t it?

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 21, 2009 at 7:13 am

  44. Eoj,

    1. Please show where I have “indulged” (to take unrestrained pleasure in) in name-calling, made assumptions, or taken freedoms (I think you mean liberty) with evidence?

    2. Yes, good arguments follow rules. I teach argumentation and know them quite well.

    3. I waited so long for you to point out my purposeful mis-spelling of the word amendment as a reason to somehow discount my question. I find it interesting that you never apply that standard to anyone else. Just as you support Jim is his endless and repetitive stream of name-calling directed toward anyone he differs with.

    4. And if you “verify” me, what will be the result of that? Will you then yield to my education and experience in the fields of communication studies, public speaking, argumentation, group communication, interpersonal communication, persuasion, critical thinking, debate theory, and forensics? And where did I talk enough about my education to the point where it would be appropriate for anyone (especially you) to tell me to “shut up” about it?

    5. Where exactly did I try to support a position simply based on an appeal to authority? And what exact “authority” do I have in this blog that would make such an appeal even possible?

    I never defended John’s outburst in class. I stated quite clearly that it was out of line and unprofessional. All I was attempting to do was expand the discussion beyond the simple name-calling to a broader and in my personal, professional, and humble opinion, more productive subject of free speech in general. I even offered questions that I thought might facilitate that move. Wouldn’t those be more interesting to talk about? Or should we all just jump up and down calling John Matteson an obnoxious, foul-mouthed, short-tempered bully?

    If that is what you really want to limit this discussion to, then just say it and I will unload on John in ways you can’t even imagine. However, if we are going to limit the discussion to simply calling John Matteson out on what a jerk he has been over most of his life, should we limit the participation to only those who actually know him?

    and speaking of revealing….

    I am glad you both understand how it works; I decide what is and is not appropriate and worthy of discussion.
    Like it or leave it.

    Professor of Speech

    February 21, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  45. Eoj,

    Both Matteson and Lopez share some degree of culpability in this matter and since you,me nor anyone else on this blog have possession of all the facts, any and all comments made are conjectural and subject to prejudicial thought.The storyline you are deriving ‘the facts’ from is coming from press accounts, which I don’t hold as an accurate source of what actually happened.Press accounts, especially in todays world, can ‘t be considered a source for truthful and fair reporting.It appears Matteson is out of control(according to press accounts) and it seems Lopez might have crossed the line by using a religiously based worldview to argue his point. Again, not being privy to Lopez’ remarks, I can’t objectively comment.
    All the name calling and insults aside, this is ultimately about freedom of speech and if the broad ramifications of the first amendment apply in venues like a classroom.Clearly, freedom of speech is not an absolute and one must be prepared to accept consequences if they advocate and live by that code.So,I agree, lets limit the conversation to freedom of speech, because so far most of the comments sound like unruly boys arguing in a sandbox.
    So, Eoj, what do you feel is the freedom of speech issue in this incident, understanding that we dont have all the facts in hand.

    Brian Rutledge

    February 21, 2009 at 6:46 pm

  46. Well as last you have said one thing that is TRUE brian, you have been duped!! You were duped LONG ago and not by me, but by the LIB DEM fools whose kool ade you drank liberally! ie: the Obamination and his cronies!!
    Yes, I am CONSISTENT with my ideas and thoughts, not like you LIB DEM Hypocrites, whose thoughts, ideas and morals are all mercurial and without any foundation!
    I have an idea, go move in with johnnie boi the Despicable LIB DEM PIG, I am sure he has room in his trailer for another LIB DEM PIG! I know you LIB DEMS have a propensity for trailer parks, so you are among your OWN kind!!
    You are right EOJ, normally I would not indulge in name calling, but then I normally don’t give the time of day to anybody as Despicable and Ignorant as brian and his buddy johnnie boi the ABUSER! Since he supports and condones johnnie boi’s LOWLIFE tactics and language, he deserves NO semblance of anything even remotely civilized!! I deal with and judge people on the content of their character, those pieces of human refuse have NONE, so I will treat them accordingly! Like the CRAP they are!!
    They are on a totally different plane, one that deserves all of the loathing and disgust we can conjure up to direct at them!! Dunces that they are, it will go right through their vacuous brains, but at least we have addressed their Blatant Ignorance!!

    jim

    February 21, 2009 at 6:47 pm

  47. Jim,

    You are proof that Darwin was correct. Leave a species isolated long enough in an isolated geographic region( say like some parts of W. Virginia)and years of breeding will produce defective offspring that are different from the rest of the world that were not subject to isolation and inbreeding.Craig Venter would love to sequence your genome.Send him a swab !

    Brian Rutledge

    February 21, 2009 at 8:30 pm

  48. LOL!! As usual you LIB DEMS always deal with Spurious assumptions and NOTHING you said is correct! I have neither the time nor patience to point out all of your incorrect assumptions! It would be a waste of time, on an Infantile Fool like you!! Not surprising that you DENY the Validity of the testimony of TWO students who were subjected to the worthless human beings’s ABUSE, because it does NOT fit in with your demented mindset! THEY WERE THERE!! Rather you choose to believe, support and condone one of the most Despicable species of mankind, an ABUSING IGNORANT LOWLIFE BULLY, because he happens to think like you!!
    I am tired of engaging in verbal banter with a LIB DEM FOOL of your ilk, you are worth neither the time nor effort! Just continue to wallow in your Ignorance!! It fits you well!!!

    jim

    February 22, 2009 at 2:57 am

  49. Jim,

    I said earlier that the teacher should be fired, if all allegations prove to be true( which seems to be the case based on the little info we have). As a matter of fact, he sould be boiled in hot oil if he did indeed do these things. All I am saying is wait for ALL facts to come out before we burn him at the stake.No histrionics, just facts then we can turn the bloodhounds loose.You do believe in due process, dont you ?

    Brian Rutledge

    February 22, 2009 at 10:03 pm

  50. Ha ha ha! You are not the only one here, Prof, so no need for me to point out “your” indulgence in name calling.
    If you were as smart as you pretend, you would know that you can’t say anything with putting a name on it.
    When you do, you speak of empty liberal platitudes.
    Second, it isn’t my duty to point out anything to you. Liberals don’t learn from mistakes, they just pontificate.

    Your buddy Brian calls people names, and you hug his knees. That makes you just another one of him.

    That is something you liberals (a despicable name, in my book!) fail to take seriously that when you associate with people who are… morally challenged at best, people who are prejudiced name-calling idiots, it is difficult to differentiate between you.
    We get tired of trying to tell just exactly how far down into Silurian Slim you have slid.
    To me, there are two sides; mine and the wrong one.

    That we understand your moral bankruptcy is sufficient to place you on the wrong side.
    So you know the rules of argumentation and still indulge in “appeal to authority,” in that same statement!
    And added, you ask, “where do I make the appeal to authority,” what, and hope I don’t know what that means? Very interesting. Can’t you make a statement that has validity based on, say, fact? Is that too difficult? Precedence? Scientific proof? Because old women say its true?
    Most of your statements are based on nothing but you prejudices. I’m not impressed.

    I will give you two points for unique squirming, though; “I spelled that word wrong on purpose!”
    That was classic! Not original, but classic. Remember the Arlo Guthrie movie were he tells the police, “I can’t tell a lie; I put that envelope at the bottom of the garbage.”
    As for using poor spelling as a reason to discount a solid argument, that would discount me, I am afraid.
    I am a terrible speller. “I feel sorry for the man who can only think of one way to spell a word.” (Quick! Prof. who am I plagiarizing?)

    No, I point to your mis-spellings for the reason I said: because you claim to be a professor.
    A claim I dispute.

    Now, about Jim, I like Jim! What’s wrong with Jim? Underneath he is a loyal and honest guy and if I were in a tough spot, say in a dark alley with baggie-jeans ruffians closing in, I would hope Jim were at my back. What would you do? Call the ACLU? Jim would pull a long-barrel pistol and I would be a happy guy.
    What’s the matter? I though liberals could see the true value and quality in even scum-bag faggots and convicted killers, yet you fail to see the true gold in Jim? Your powers of discernment are non-colligate.

    If you can’t verify you are who you claim, then shut up about it already, teach.
    Religious nuts claim the same thing when they say, “Its true because The Bible says so!” See the point?
    You claim the authority of being a professor. If you are, fine. Prove it.

    “…should we all …call John Matteson an obnoxious, foul-mouthed, short-tempered bully? ” Yes. And then fire his ass, draw and quarter him, and bury him in four separate holes. Then people like Matteson would hesitate to rob students of their right to speak.

    This country has a lot of problems. Education should be the medium that leads us from these evil times but the more liberal the system gets, the worse it becomes. Why is that, do you think, Prof? Coincidence? The evils of conservative thought? Religion?
    The fat finger is pointing at you. At Matteson.
    Not Lopez. We will place guilt for this incidence exactly where it belongs; we don’t have to personally know the people involved to decide how we feel about it.
    We don’t need your permission to think and talk about it.

    “I decide what is and is not appropriate and worthy of discussion…” Yes, that’s the way it is.
    I don’t claim to be a professor, or fair, or sensitive or even nice. I am none of the above.

    For once I agree with Brian. “Any and all comments made are conjectural and subject to prejudicial thought.” Including his own. I don’t trust the media, a sack of festering liberalism. We can be sure the situation was not as portrayed. It was undoubtedly much worse. Matteson probably exposed himself with a cigar under his desk, too.

    Freedom of speech is absolute. It is freedom of action that is not absolute. Yes, speaking is “action,” and there are things that can be said that should never be said, but as long as there is no corresponding action, it is fine to say things like, “I want to kill George Bush!”

    Contrast that with hate-speech. Example; I can say “rump-wranglers should all go to jail, have their freedoms revoked!” and I may actually have to go to jail. That is how crazy things are. They can DO IT, but we can’t even say what we think about them doing it!

    Now, take a moment to consider that (probably) Matteson did something very similar to Lopez, and pseudo-intellectual arguments to protect this professor are the worst kind of anti-humanitarian sentiments. You convicted GWB on less.
    In the 40’s, were you in Germany, you would be quislings.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 23, 2009 at 2:41 am

  51. Thanks EOJ and you are right, I would pull a gun to defend myself or anybody else who is innocent or a victim and much to the chagrin of brian the LIB DEM, it would be from under a tailored suit and tie, which I am usually wearing! I work and pay for my clothes and NOT with welfare money like LIB DEMS ie: brian Oops, there goes another one of brian the LIB DEMS misconceptions, that I occupy a position lower in rank than him. Just one of the many LIES spewed from his mouth. As a matter of fact, I can’t think of Anything that he has said that has any foundation in Truth!

    However, I would hope that you are not implying that gays are scumbags though, gay straight, etc I judge a person only on their Character or lack of same. Gay, straight or bi, sexual preference is just one of many facets of the total person. Of paramount importance is if a person has character or is lacking the same. I definitely judge the latter much more harshly,as they so justly deserve!

    jim

    February 23, 2009 at 4:30 am

  52. I have always considered sexual preferences to be an integral part of character.
    I mean, if a guy chooses to be gay, it says something about his character.

    Not that I hate gays, I don’t hate them anymore than I may or may not hate run-of-the mill anyone. But I really don’t think that society, bending over backward to promote gayism over normalism is a smart society choice.

    I could list any number of logical reasons but that isn’t a subject for this board, I expect. Only that, normal-phobes have just as much right to be looked down on as homo-phobes!
    Because for every claim that straights hate gays, there is, inside it, a statement that says, “Gays hate to be normal.”

    And pleeeese don’t give me the victim line, “They were born that way!”
    That is so easy to disprove; first, people aren’t born anything. Sexual identity is learned. Yes, maybe mom makes the kid into a fag. But that is still a choice involved, not a born-that-a-way scenario.
    Butt here is the clincher; if people were born gay, there would be no cases of people switching from gay to normal or vice-a-versa. There would be no dual gender or bi-sexual people. Because they would be born one way.
    Or the other.

    I have seen how people can control their vices. I have seen how they can rise far above the hand dealt them by God. I have seen how mighty the mind is, where people can, it seems, even cure terrible ills, invent The Internet and Global Warming, and even exterminate entire nations with focused concentration. I certainly know what the mind is capable of.

    And some morgott expects me to believe a guy can’t resist the urge to plant a tree in another guys star-fish? And further, that he shouldn’t even try to resist that urge? Sorry, but I don’t think sinking to the lowest common denominator is a wise societal choice.

    Yes, being gay says a whole lot about a guys character, Jim. I would guess that, short of defending siko professors, it is one of the most powerful statements about character a guy can make!

    You have heard, “love the criminal, hate the crime.” Well, that about sums it up. I don’t think gay should be criminal but lets stop trying to call it normal, ok.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 23, 2009 at 9:48 am

  53. I definitely concur with you that gay militants who want to force their lifestyle down our throats is detest
    aible and totally unacceptable. This posture is doing them more harm than good, as far as from the PR persepective. I think most people resent their blatant attempt to force their lifestyle on our society and is very counter productive and results in a strong backlash against all gays. There are a lot of people like me, who could care less what is done in the bedroom, but don’t flaunt it or want me to do the same thing, I will make my own decisions.
    I do however think that we are the cumulative result and product of our biological composition coupled with our cumulative life experiences. Psychology teaches us that when exposed to certain circumstances like rejection by a father, that person has more of a propensity to seek male companionship and bonding to compensate for what was lacking in the formative years. I do subscribe to that theory. I don;t think that person has any less character than another, just maybe not as strong as another to overcome the early inadequacies. If they are conducting themselves in an appropriate manner, I see no justification in shunning them or relegating them to a lower position.
    I Definitely agree with you that global warming is a farce perpetrated on the ignorant, whose ultimate motive is for more government control. The obamabots are playing right into this ruse, unfortunately entangling us in this concerted effort to have government intrude where they have no business.
    Glaring examples of that are the onerous regs and stds they put on the auto industry, putting them in the bankrupt status they are now in. Government has NO business exacting their ridiculous regs and stds on the auto industry. Free market will take care of that. Coupled with that nonesense intrusion is the bending over for the wacko enviros and not drilling our own oil that we are swimming in, IF we would let reason reign and drill!! Those factors have destroyed the auto industry, which now we have to prop up with our tax dollars! What idiocy and one of the chief idiots who Caused the problem was elected by the Morons! They want even MORE Socialialism, what unadulterated Fools!

    jim

    February 23, 2009 at 2:41 pm

  54. Actually agree with Jim and Eoj. Being gay is not the norm,human induced global warming is a hoax( Al Gore -puke ),and government regulations have killed our auto industry.I can honestly say I dont like being around gays-male or female. One thing Eoj stated was that sexual identity was learned and that gays are not born that way and that it is easy to disprove the latter.The studies I have read about sexual preference show that it just cant be proven yet what causes sexual preference. I was wondering what your proof is?

    Brian Rutledge

    February 23, 2009 at 5:22 pm

  55. Eoj,

    I’ll take your inability to provide a single example of my indulgence in name-calling as an acknowledgement that no such example can be found. So, I would appreciate that you restrain from accusing me of something without support for your accusation. And your justification for not providing needed support is also without merit, “it isn’t my duty to point out anything to you. Liberals don’t learn from mistakes, they just pontificate.” Nowhere throughout any of my postings have I refused to accept evidence as support for any point made.

    I don’t support name-calling as a form of support for any argument: no matter who makes it. Brian, Jim, you, or even (and actually more so) professor Matteson. And I’m not sure why you think I am hugging anyone’s knees? Is that some sort of veiled comment on my sexuality? I’ve made no associations with anyone on this blog. I have taken no particular side. I have simply hoped for civilized conversation on what is a very important topic.

    What statements have I made without some reason behind them? I only offer myself as someone who actually teaches public speaking, and does so in the very same district as professor Matteson. While that gives me no special understanding of the specific incident in question, I do believe that it allows me to offer a certain perspective on public speaking classes in general. I offer my perspective from that position, but do not use it as undeniable support for any of my arguments. I have a certain (and limited) authority within my classes, and even there I do not simply rely upon that authority to support any argument I make.

    My only complaint about Jim is simple: too often he falls into a practice of repetitive name-calling. And if Jim were to limit that aspect of his posts, his arguments would be much better served. And I would point out that in one of his recent posts he does just that, and it is the most compelling post from him yet. I didn’t call Jim a name or made nasty comments about where he lives or his DNA composition. All of which are distasteful approaches to discourse.

    And, I would not hesitate to defend anyone who was being attacked: even you.

    Perhaps, I am simply mistaken in thinking your use of the word “YOU” means ME when you are answering a post of mine. Obviously, you are referring to some larger group of people that you believe I am somehow a member of.

    I NEVER defended John’s outburst in class. Not once, and not in the slightest way. But, he’s not a latent homosexual, and I know Jim has no basis for such a statement. And Jim, do you really wish he (and his wife and children) really ends up in the gutter?

    Professor of Speech

    February 23, 2009 at 10:23 pm

  56. To trivialize johnnie boi’s Despicable, Savage Excoriation of his young innocent student by reducing it to a description of just an “outburst”, is really incredible and intellectually dishonest!
    As for name calling, the individual dictates what they will be called. If they walk like a duck, quack like a duck, you better believe I am going to call them a duck!! I don;t believe in ameliorating my language to fit some PC CRAP template! The behavior, conduct and actions of the person dictate what they will be called. Conversely, if the person’s bahavior and actions are positive, you won;t find a person who is quicker and more anxious to give credit where credit is due. Either way, we Earn what we are called and I definitely believe in “telling it like it is”!

    jim

    February 23, 2009 at 11:17 pm

  57. Jim,

    I do not trivialize anything regarding this issue. I simply don’t write about it in the same fashion as you, and for that I’m called intellectually dishonest, why? I’m also unsure how a reduction in name-calling is associated with “PC CRAP.” And if you feel justified in describing professor Matteson’s actions as a, “Despicable, Savage Excoriation” I have no problem with that at all. And see, we can disagree without calling each other names. That’s all I was trying to say.

    Professor of Speech

    February 23, 2009 at 11:55 pm

  58. Good! I am glad that you agree that a duck should be called a duck if he exhibits the characteristics and behavior of one and not soft pedal the truth. All of those terms are very apropos and consistent with his blatant and severe lack of even a modicum of character!

    As for whether or not I wish for him to be in the gutter, I have nothing whatever to do with that. He has placed himself there and only he can take himself out, if he chooses.

    jim

    February 24, 2009 at 12:32 am

  59. OK, I could hide behind the polite “out” you graciously provided, Prof. and claim that “you” really did mean the dictionary meaning of People In General.

    But that would be honest. I really did mean you, and looking back on your posts, you are right! You didn’t directly call anyone names. Very well of you and I applaud you.

    I did take exception to this comment of yours, and maybe I interpreted it to be insult.
    You tell me; “…to hear you all speak with such confidence of certainty about (Matteson’s) thoughts, intent, sexuality, politics, and intellect is absurd. Maybe you should stick to talking about the issue in general and avoid aspects of this particular event with which you have no understanding of.”

    This is a fairly direct implication that we are ignorant, and that we have no business discussing Matteson’s mental condition on this blog.
    But, we do have every right. We have every right to be as stupid and bigoted on this blog as he seemed to be, to us at least, in his classroom. Our behavior here was actually appropriate!
    A blog is an accepted place to air these feeling and ideas.

    But I see your last post as a sort of apology, and even if mistaken on that point, I accept it. You really are well spoken and do not seem to be the type that moves his lips when he types.

    In return, I offer my apology. I can be rough with people, and see very little reason to expect that people will change, and hence no reason for me to be nice about handling them. There is little reward for being nice. I am sorry I made rude and demeaning comments to you, Professor.

    Brian, I am offering you an apology, too. This is kind of a mass amnesty deal.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 24, 2009 at 6:46 am

  60. Jim, I used common sense, not a study or publication to arrive at my conclusion.
    I don’t seek nor require someone else’s permission to state the obvious. As for me being the only one that thinks this way, I have no problem with that either; there was a time when only one man, Copernicus, thought the world revolved around the sun.

    Kids start to experiment with sexual practices at puberty. Although they can have a “sexual awareness” younger, it isn’t until they are in a position to choose that they have a preference, another word for choice. That is common sense and needs no further explanation.
    Hence, sexual orientation is learned, not inherited. Because of the timing, it can’t be any other way.

    If, for on reason or another, a “person has …a propensity to seek male companionship and bonding…” the logical question is, If this is what happens in some cases, why doesn’t it happen in all? Obvious answer is because it isn’t the reason boys turn to boys. Logic says the simplest answer is probably the truth.

    Simple answer: The gay motto; “Hook up! Anytime, anyone, any place!” provides men with plentiful sex and no strings attached. Need we look further for a reason for gay sex?

    But lets look a little deeper, shall we? It isn’t unusual for men to have affection for other men. It is healthy.
    I love my father. I loved my pottery teacher and my karate teacher. I respected them too.

    I didn’t have sex with them.
    It is called Homo-sexual for a reason; It isn’t called Homo-attraction, or Homo-respectus, or Homo-desirous.
    Its not about respect, love, needs or commitment.

    It is about how two people perform the act of “sex.” I am a straight guy.
    There are plenty of women I find attractive. Very attractive! Oh yeah. But the concepts of respect, honor and even law all come into play prior to me indulging in the pursuit of sex with any of them.

    Are gays somehow exempt from this, and if so, what does that say about their character?
    Do you know what gays call a virgin boy?

    Homosexuality hurts society in so many ways that, like any other activity that hurts society, it is irresponsible to look they other way, and accept it as an acceptable alternative life style.
    So, I don’t.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 24, 2009 at 6:57 am

  61. EOJ, I agree more with the points that you stated, more than I disagree. However, each person is unique with different DNA and life experiences which mold them.

    The two things that I am Very much against, pushed by the LIB DEMS is homosexuality must be accepted as the norm and lack of morals and fidelity seems to be a badge of courage to them!! ie: slick willie the sexual predator

    Easy divorces and break up of the family unit leads to even more homosexuality, especially if the kids are in their formative years.
    As for sexual promiscuity being more prevalent in homosexuals, it depends on the individual. There is rampant promiscuity among heterosexuals as well. Having sex like dogs, without any responsibility and popping babies out with many different members of the opposite sex is encouraged by the LIB DEMS, so they can make more money and LIB DEMS get more voters! This leaves in their wake, Many kids without the nurturing and caring they so desperately need and deserve!

    Barry and the LIB DEMS love this, because it perpetuates their fallacy that the gov’t is the panacea for everything, giving them more and more power! This flawed philosophy comes at great cost to society as well as being financially devastating!

    jim

    February 24, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  62. I have heard it said that blogs and other similiar sites serve to allow us to express our selves in ways we normally wouldn’t in public.Air out our deepest concerns and air out mental clutter, so we can pull our britches up, go out and function in society without strangling each other.A computer psychiatrist. Jim has an unusual writng style and ideology, but careful reading of his posts reveals a deep concern and fear for the direction he feels his country is headed.Read some of the political pamplets from the late 1700’s and early 1800’s,and the comments on this blog would sound polite.A conservative like Jim reads words from a socialist, Lib Dem like me and responds in writing. Thats called communication and as long as the lines are open and we have dialogue,Amreica is doing something right.
    Now I do have a question for those of you who feel homosexuality is a choice. As a biology major and now a practicing Internist,my research on this is that no one has proved either way if homosexuality is present at birth, a choice,learned behavior or something in between. We do know that many other animal species exhibit homosexual behavior,including most mammals. What’s the explanation for this? Surely you dont believe elephants make a willful choice after struggling internally as to what their sexual preference is.To be truthful, both sides are jumping the gun when one states emphatically that homosexuality is genetic and the other side emphatically states it is a choice.Opinions abound, but the facts are scarce.We can say that if we look at Gods other creations, homosexual behavior is not a choice

    Brian Rutledge

    February 24, 2009 at 4:01 pm

  63. I didn’t think it would ever happen, but I have found myself agreeing in part with you Brian!
    I too have had a number of courses in psych and counseling and have come to the conclusion that sexual preference is something that there is more that we don;t know, than we do know about it. I also think that there is far more attention and emphasis on sexual preference than it deserves. Case in point, I had an associate who I had worked with for quite a period of time and found him to be honest, trustworthy, dependable and somebody with integrity and character. One day I found out that he was gay. Did that negate everthing that I knew about him and had personally experienced? Did he instantly become untrustworthy, undependable and void of integrity and character? Of course the answer is, that he was the very same person before I found out, as he was before I knew about his sexual preference. What is much more sad is when the child tells the parent that their sexual preference is different than the parent, and they kick them out of the house and out in the street! That child is the same as they were the hour before they revealed that, there was not an instantaneous change on the part of their child. If they are a real parent, their love for their offspring will be the same after, as it was before they were told that by their child. If it isn’t, then they aren’t fit to be a parent! Sexual preference is just one facet of the total being and society gives it far too much importance! This is really exacerbated by the militant gays, who are so counter productive to their cause!

    By the way, I am the same in person as on the blog, transparent and engage in realism. I don;t lower myself to using profanity however, that is reserved for the ignorant. When they use it, they relegate themselves to the gutter by their actions.

    jim

    February 24, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  64. Jim,

    I certainly agree that the militant gays do more harm than good for their cause. This is probably true of all militant groups I would guess. Your comment that you are the same in person as you are on this blog(transparent) intrigued me.That is true I believe, but I doubt you express yourself verbally in public as graphically as you do here. ” Abusing, ignorant, low-life bully “, “Lib Dem Pigs”,”like the crap they are”,” PC crap template ” are some of the qoutes you have made on this blog which frequently I find myself splitting my gut in laughter, because they are…well…funny.My point is all of us get to express ourselves on this blog in any manner we want. If you speak in public like you do in this blog, give me your address because I want to hang around with you for a couple days !!

    Brian Rutledge

    February 24, 2009 at 7:52 pm

  65. Glad I could bring you some levity.
    To put a finer point on it, I don;t go behind people’s back and say one thing and then tell them something else to their face.
    However, make no mistake I tell it like it is.
    White is white and black is black, right is right and wrong is wrong, none of this nebulous PC CRAP mindset.

    jim

    February 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm

  66. Well, if you aspire to behave like a Bonobo, go for it. My goals in life are little higher.

    I think Darwinian theory would have to admit defeat if what you say about homosexual animals were actually true, but as much as I distrust Darwin theory, the comparison of animal so-called homosexual activity to human is a comparison of an apples and an isotherm.

    The gap between two horses rubbing up against each other in the springtime and two gays rubbing against each other in a public toilet is immense. (pun intended!)

    Just because other mammals do something is no indicator that humans should do it.
    Humans are unique in so many ways and I wont bore you with the list, but paramount is the ability to know right from wrong and to act from the force of our will.
    “Sure, gays can be honest, trustworthy, dependable…with integrity and character.”
    But there is difference between “being a character” and having character.

    Look, to make things easy, maybe someone can tell me why being gay is good? Other than “because they want to,” what are the benefits it brings to society?
    I can name about a dozen ways it harms society, and dad’s anguish and pain are pretty important points, so what is the pay-off?
    Aside from sexual pleasure, is it because you get to redecorate in pastel shades of mauve?

    About the gay son being the same prior to telling dad as after, not true at all. Things are not the same. To claim things are the same is only looking from gay side. Dad didn’t know, then he did. That is a big difference.

    I can see it now;
    Son opens one of dad’s beers and says, “Hey Pop, thanks for putting me through Yale, and by the way, I suck cock.”
    Things are not even close to the same, and never will be again.
    Don’t you think dad may feel some pain? Some anguish? Suffering? Is his suffering of no account?
    In a court of law, those are all awardable litagations. A woman can sue for pain and suffering because a guy calls her sexy, or doesn’t call her sexy. But a father, who suddenly realizes his son is athema to respectability, a social-leper, basically a new-age Etta, he isn’t allowed to feel any pain over that? He isn’t a “real father” if he finds this revelation a triffle distasteful?
    Because he cares, he suddenly ceased being the kids father?

    Are you out of your skull?

    Here is what I think; even if a person feels an over-powering urge to be gay, they can choose not to have sex with their own gender. We can all choose who we DON’T have sex with.

    And they should choose not to. Make a life-style choice; make the right one.

    Great people achieve great things not because they have it easy. Not because they can do whatever they like. People achieve IN SPITE of adversity. Overcoming homosexaul inclinations can be done. I suspect many do it. I encourge and applaude them.

    I am not saying they will certainly be happy as straights, because few people are, but people can lead productive meaningful lives without having sex with anyone, anywhere, anytime.
    Being gay, like being a smoker or a Muslim is a bad life-style choice. Sure, as straights they won’t get as much sex, but but gays have 10 times the incidence of STD as normal people. Not to mention the “Big A” potential.

    In fact, most heterosexual life is an exercise in restraint. Life is one long Saturday night where none of the cuties want to dance with you.
    But lets change the verb, see how it looks then.

    Take writing. A nice clean constitutionaly protected verb.

    “The great writer Hemingway was a drunk!”
    Is that why he was a great writer? No, he was great in spite of it. Huxley suffered from terrible migraine, but he refused to use pain-killers because he felt they dulled his mind.

    He didn’t whine, “I was born that way!” Hemingway didn’t complain, “I became that way!”

    As a society we have become a bunch of “enablers.” Some feel guilty because we find it easy to relate to women. Guilty because we are successful. Guilty because we are frugal and save our money. Guilty because we didn’t commit some crime and land in jail.

    So guilty that we want to make ourselves feel better by letting criminals go free, socialist tax us into penury, and gender-challenged weirdoes tell us what character and morality means.

    Cheese-whiz, we let the UN tell us when we can take-out some psychopathic madman and his weapons-of-mass-rape-room sons.
    What is wrong with us?? Actions have responsibilities, and this applies to the way we do sex, too.

    Test question, oh learn-ed ones; What is the root-word of morality?

    Answer; majority. Surprise! Morals are not a choice. They are a fact.

    “It is the sum of the accepted behavior of the majority of people within the society influenced by the people of that group.” note- majority.

    That is why different societies have different morals. Now, if gays were in their own society, say…on the dark side of the MOON, it would be up to them to decide for themselves just which animals they want to mimic.

    Question is, how is it that this particular minority now determines our morality?

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 25, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  67. English, a language that lurks in dark alleys, beats up other languages and rifles through their pockets for spare vocabulary.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 25, 2009 at 3:22 pm

  68. Eoj,

    I agree with some of what you say, but your suggeation that Darwinism would have to admit defeat if what I said about homosexuality in the animal kingdom were true, is not one one of them.Your premise would predict that certainly by now evolution would have weeded out other deleterious genetic weaknesses such as severe genetic birth defects, Downs syndrome,Sickle Cell disease etc. It would also suggest that men and women who are born infertile, would have been weeded out by now because they have nothing to offer the species as far as survival goes. Maybe evolution is still weeding the above mentioned out. We dont know because we havent been keeping detailed records that long.But surely you admit that gays offer some benefit to society-they fight in our military for instance, engage in scientific research etc.Evolution doesnt solely rely on ones ability to procreate, but whether that animal,plant or whatever life form has a benefit to that species. I would argue that sterile humans and gays do have some benefit to the species OR that they are slowly being weeded out. Mant anthropologists have stated that homosexuality, once a fairly common activity in earlier societies, is declining as a percentage compared to the general population.
    The moral debate is another issue altogether and I agree that homosexuals do have a choice NOT to ‘act out’ on their sexual desires. Not sure they can become hetereosexuals if they just ‘will it’ to be so.But to me, as far as evolution is concerned,the question is whether their moral actions are actually harmful to the human species or just offensive to some.Evolution allows for all types of progeny to continue who on the surface appear to have no benefit to the species, but if you look a little deeper, the benefit is there.

    Brian Rutledge

    February 25, 2009 at 6:37 pm

  69. […] Professor Censors, Insults Student During Speech […]

  70. About the gay son being the same prior to telling dad as after, not true at all. Things are not the same. To claim things are the same is only looking from gay side. Dad didn’t know, then he did. That is a big difference.

    you proved my point, the dad may have changed, but his son is the very SAME person he was before telling his dad, he has not changed at all, he is still the same as he was before

    Like I said however, I am not going to let somebody else determine my behavior or turn gay because of society’s pressure on me to do so

    jim

    February 25, 2009 at 10:41 pm

  71. Jim, the situation is changed when any factor in it has changed. This is never more true than in a “social situation,” such as a relationship between father and son.

    If the son’s confession changes the parameters of the relation, is it fair to blame the father for having a reaction? Is he not free to have a feeling, a response of his own? Is he not free to reject his son based on his sons behavior?

    If his son came home and said, “Gee, sorry but I killed mom,” does he still have to love and embrace him? Or can he be a bit angry?

    You are taking the role of “society” in your statement, “I am not going to let somebody else determine my behavior…because of society’s pressure…”
    On this subject, you are determining the dad’s behavior. You are the pressure for him to conform to your view of PC behavior.
    In the Muslim world, the dad could legally stone his gay son.

    The thrust of your original argument was how unjust the father behaved when nothing had esentially changed, and my counter stands; that from the father’s perspective, everything has changed and he has the right, even the responsibility as a father to curb his son.

    Brian, about Darwin’s theory; “Survival of the Fittest, animals moving up the evolutionary chain based on small deviations and advantageous changes that gives on animal a better chance at survival and hence, handing down his/her genes to the resulting off-spring.”
    Now, where in this chain do you see homosexuals doing that? That would have to be Darwin’s second theory of evolution, “Survival of the Mis-Fittest, where slight changes in behavior result in zero off-spring.”

    It is true that in every litter there is a runt. And thats the nitty gritty of not only evolution but pure survival of any species!
    A species only survives if the kids survive.

    That is so important, I will say it again; the species only survives if the kids survive.
    What gays do may not hurt the survival of the species, but does it promote it?
    And that has always been my argument, that gays provide nothing that promotes society, civilization or a better culture that is not already being provided by hetrosexuals.

    I can say that with 100% confidence that I am 100% correct, because the only defining point that differentiates homosexuals from heterosexuals is how they perform sex. Remove that factor and guess what? They are either non-sexual or heterosexuals. It is how they fuck and only about how they fuck, excuse my french.

    How can you possibly say that survival of the human race is depended on that?
    You can’t. Well, you cou could but you would be wrong.
    You don’t want to appear a homophobe by calling homosexuals wrong, and I understand your fear. But you are a smart guy. Don’t tell me that you think Darwinian theory is promoted by homosexual activities.

    Eoj Trahnier

    February 26, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  72. Eoj,

    Darwin did not coin the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ but used the term natural selection which states that you dont have to be ‘the fittest’ to survive, you just have to be ‘fit enough’. I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions about his ideas.Scientists today rarely use the term ‘survival of the fittest’.
    Let me respond to your comment that ‘a species only survives if the kids(offspring) survive’.This is true. Lets go back to the 1700’s when this country was mainly agrarian and it wasn’t uncommon to have eight,nine or ten offspring all of which were needed to help out and ensure that the clan survived. If one of the offspring were homosexual, but did their fair share of work around the farm for 18 years or more,would that not be of benefit to the family’s survival.That child will never reproduce, but his role in helping the family(who will reproduce) survive is undeniable.Reproductive capability is not the only way a single member of a species can help that species survive,unless they become so numerous that the species die out.Thats why there is a reletively small number of homosexuals in any species.The species that DID have too many members unable to reproduce, are long gone.
    Let me now respond to your comment that gays provide nothing that promotes society,civilization or a better culture that is not already provided by non-gays.I refer many patients to surgeons all the time and after years of doing this, you find out who the best surgeons are and believe you me, some are better than others and have better outcomes and less morbidity.One surgeon in particular was extremely shillful and has better mortality rates than many of his colleagues.I had no idea he was gay until after about ten years of refering to him.Why would I suspect him-he was an avid outdoorsman,golfer etc. The perfect man’s man. I would suggest that he did have more to offer society than many of his fellow non-gay surgeons.Apply this to other professions as well.Some gays are more highly skilled than straights and in essence add more to society. There is an evolutionary place for them,but in small numbers.
    I do not advocate gay lifestyles and admit that I even felt different about my surgical colleague(sorry but its true), but I continued to use him because of his benefit to my patients which make up our society.

    Brian Rutledge

    February 26, 2009 at 6:09 pm

  73. One last thing and I’ll shut up. I do admit to being homophobic to a degree-its deeply ingrained in me and my southern roots. But evolution doesnt give a rats ass if somehting is ‘right or wrong’. All it requires is that a species be ‘fit enough’ to make it and offer ‘enough’ to help its fellow members.Aberrant sexual behavior is not enough to make an oranism unfit as long as that organism has ‘enough’ benefit to its members.

    Brian Rutledge

    February 26, 2009 at 7:03 pm

  74. If the son’s confession changes the parameters of the relation, is it fair to blame the father for having a reaction? Is he not free to have a feeling, a response of his own? Is he not free to reject his son based on his sons behavior?

    If his son came home and said, “Gee, sorry but I killed mom,” does he still have to love and embrace him? Or can he be a bit angry?

    ——————————————-

    Of course the dad is free to reject his son, whatever the cause, but if he is a Real dad and loves his son, it will be unconditional!

    Your analogy of the son killing his mom vs: being gay is a ridiculous analogy and extrapolation.

    As Brian said and parallels my experience, that surgeon and my associate had not changed one iota, after we found out they were gay. Their abilities and talents were the very same after as before we knew. Ditto, for the son who tells his dad he is gay, he has not changed one iota from what he was before he revealed that. If Brian, myself or the dad changes their opinion after finding out the person is gay, that is THEIR or MY problem, NOT the one who made it known they are gay.

    jim

    February 26, 2009 at 11:16 pm

  75. A Real father? Capital indicates it has a different meaning than a real father? I have a real father and he doesn’t condone homosexuality.

    There are many ways a father can show love, and being resposible for the welfare of his children is pretty high on the list. Accepting homosexuality in his children is not being responsible at all. You find it distasteful that he would denounce the son, but that is an extrapolation of you (lack of) values.

    If this theoretic father’s morals and values denounce homosexuality, he will show his love by being a real father, and pass to his son his values, for better or worse.

    My point stands; The condition of gayness in and of itself no contribution to humanity.

    You have all proven that and thank you. I rest my case. The advantages stated by your examples and theory are contributions by the person reguardless of sexual orientation. They may be contributions from gay people, but the contribution was good not for the express reason that they were gay.

    In summation; The condition of “being Gay” is a definition of who and how you engage in the act of sex.
    Society is not promoted one iotta by this method of engaging in sex. The species is not evolutionarly enhanced by this way of doing sex. Reproduction, survival and future generations are not served by this method of sex.
    Therefore it is groundless to claim it progresses society.

    Good luck on this thread. I am out of here.
    Eoj

    Eoj Trahnier

    March 1, 2009 at 4:32 am

  76. Eoj,

    In case you look back at this thread, here’s some food for thought. Yes, you are correct that the actual sex act between two gays is not beneficial to society,but either is the sex act between two straights after drinks and dinner on a Saturday night! It is what people do with their whole lives that decides if they have a societal benefit or not.Sex is only a small part of a persons life. Many men who have looked at pornography lead otherwise very beneficial lives and have contributed much.Tchiakovsky was a known homosexual as were many composers,writers,scientists,military people etc. I find the sex
    act between two members of the same sex morally wrong and repulsive, but to say that these people have not once benefitted society is foolish . Also Eoj, you are simply stupid when it comes to your understanding of evolution.Remember, you just have to be ‘fit enough’ to make it- not some sturdy,dogmatic, red bloodied American-just fit enough. Have you contributed something lasting to society? The bisexual da Vinci sure did.

    Brian Rutledge

    March 1, 2009 at 4:38 pm

  77. I doubt that anyone is reading these posts anymore. But, since I finally ran across it, there are a couple of points I would like to add. They are points of fact only. I won’t bother to get into the actual debate here because that would be a waste of time.

    So, here is some truth about what happened. These facts may not change the minds of all of the hate-filler individuals on this blog calling themselves Christians, but it should expose them for being exactly that. And just so you know that I am not making this up – I teach at LACC, I know all of the people involved and I have received and read direct reports from the majority of the other students who were in this class. Most of the factual claims made in this original article are simply false. The ADF falsely reported that facts of this story because the reality would not have supported their extreme position.

    Matteson did NOT call the student a fascist bastard. He did use that language and it was a reference to most of the anti-gay folks writing on this blog. However, it was not directed at Lopez and it was done in a conversation with other students before class began. Most of the students did NOT choose to stay and listen. Most of them asked for permission to leave because they were offended and Matteson gave them permission to do so – which is completely appropriate. Lopez completely ignored the stated requirements of the assignment. It was supposed to be an informative speech, not a persuasive. Nothing about his speech was responsive to the identified requirements of the assignment. The majority of the students wrote a letter supporting Matteson’s actions and delivered it to the Dean. And finally, a major fact that no one wants reported is that Lopez is well known on campus for being violent and disruptive. He was suspended a year earlier for starting a fist fight with the Student Body President.

    At least have your facts straight before you start spewing hatred based on lies.

    the Truth

    August 25, 2010 at 12:44 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: