One Gutsy Girl

[rcdrury 2]

8 hours ago, TriGirl said:

Jerry -- I have read through the entire thread, and see where it has gone.  While I, in no uncertain terms, totally agree with what this valedictorian ultimately said, I'm going to have to disagree with her tactics.  Yes, I agree with her message. Yes, I agree with her passion.  Yes, I absolutely agree that this law is dangerous and hurtful.

But those are similar arguments for anyone who wants to pull the same stunt to speak out about other issues.  Notice the spirited debate this thread has sparked.  Imagine if she had used this tactic to speak against parents allowing gender transition for pre-teens?  Just because we agree with her doesn't make her any less brave than the religious teen who slips in a speech about their god instead of the programmed remarks.

Personally, I think the issue of irresponsible TV and media abuse is also a serious, worthy, and courageous topic to address in these out-of-control times.  It affects the health, well-being and prosperity of our country and the possible survival of the republic.  Again, though so many of us do agree that her final topic is worthy of national attention, so is her original topic.  If we let her go without consequences for this tactic, it opens the door for any kid with their own issue to do the same thing.

I agree; however, not necessarily with your chosen illustration. I believe that a student who swaps her approved speech for a strong religious diatribe would be out of line, but simply injecting one's God as a personal motivation as part of one's own success story is absolutely appropriate. Something like that should not be an issue, as it should not be stricken from the speech to begin, but if it were, I would applaud the student for his or her standing up on principle.

[billvon 2,792]

9 hours ago, TriGirl said:

But those are similar arguments for anyone who wants to pull the same stunt to speak out about other issues.  Notice the spirited debate this thread has sparked.  Imagine if she had used this tactic to speak against parents allowing gender transition for pre-teens?

That would be great, actually, if that's what she truly believes.  We need more spirited and informed debate like this and less clickbait news stories.

Quote

Just because we agree with her doesn't make her any less brave than the religious teen who slips in a speech about their god instead of the programmed remarks.

I agree.  And that happens all the time - and I think that's a good use of the platform.  I may disagree with what they say, but I am glad they are willing to risk censure to speak out on what's important to them.  A quick search through Youtube returned a dozen valedictorian speeches about "the kingdom of God" "our responsibility to Jesus" etc.

Quote

Personally, I think the issue of irresponsible TV and media abuse is also a serious, worthy, and courageous topic to address in these out-of-control times. 

Also agreed.  And if another valedictorian decides to deviate from her official "glory be to God" speech to give a speech on media abuse - good for her as well.

[jakee 1,408]

On 6/7/2021 at 9:12 PM, rcdrury said:

They don't give a shit? Incorrect; they care greatly, they just realize that some things are not rightly within the government purview, and that some things that sound good simply aren't.

So how, specifically, do they have the strongest support for them?

Quote

With the exception of education, each of the items you named, including health care, is a simply a consumer good; nothing more. Conservatives are strong advocates of a viable, responsible safety net for all of them; however, we do not endorse counterproductive handouts that make people unnecessarily dependent upon the state. 

So again what, specifically, do conservatives advocate for and endorse? If you don't want a safety net that provides anything not paid for at point of supply then what do you want?

Please try answering with details rather than platitudes.

[jakee 1,408]

On 6/7/2021 at 9:41 PM, rcdrury said:

Not remotely close to my statement. You're reading in a lot. I've already stated conservatives' strong support for effective social programs.

What social programs?

You've stated that you support them, you've stated what they should not do (ie actually provide any form of free healthcare or other handout). What do you want them to do that is directly helpful to a person who's just been forced to have a baby they can't afford to adequately care for?

[jakee 1,408]

15 hours ago, TriGirl said:

But those are similar arguments for anyone who wants to pull the same stunt to speak out about other issues.  Notice the spirited debate this thread has sparked.  Imagine if she had used this tactic to speak against parents allowing gender transition for pre-teens?  Just because we agree with her doesn't make her any less brave than the religious teen who slips in a speech about their god instead of the programmed remarks.

The tactics don't make either speech good or bad, the speech itself does.

Imagine a private school or university run by religious nutters who give their full approval to a valedictorian speech about how Jesus will cast the transgender abominations into the fiery pit of hell - would that speech be a good speech because it was given without subterfuge? Would it be qualitatively any different to the same speech given in a different school without the teacher's knowledge?

I don't see it.

[Bigfalls 111]

15 hours ago, TriGirl said:

Jerry -- I have read through the entire thread, and see where it has gone.  While I, in no uncertain terms, totally agree with what this valedictorian ultimately said, I'm going to have to disagree with her tactics.  Yes, I agree with her message. Yes, I agree with her passion.  Yes, I absolutely agree that this law is dangerous and hurtful.

But those are similar arguments for anyone who wants to pull the same stunt to speak out about other issues.  Notice the spirited debate this thread has sparked.  Imagine if she had used this tactic to speak against parents allowing gender transition for pre-teens?  Just because we agree with her doesn't make her any less brave than the religious teen who slips in a speech about their god instead of the programmed remarks.

Personally, I think the issue of irresponsible TV and media abuse is also a serious, worthy, and courageous topic to address in these out-of-control times.  It affects the health, well-being and prosperity of our country and the possible survival of the republic.  Again, though so many of us do agree that her final topic is worthy of national attention, so is her original topic.  If we let her go without consequences for this tactic, it opens the door for any kid with their own issue to do the same thing.

I guess it is similar to the Oscars where a winner will use their acceptance speech to as a platform for their agenda.

As for abortion, there will never be an agreement.  Probably only laws depending on who is in power.

[TriGirl 299]

On 6/9/2021 at 7:56 AM, jakee said:

The tactics don't make either speech good or bad, the speech itself does.

Imagine a private school or university run by religious nutters who give their full approval to a valedictorian speech about how Jesus will cast the transgender abominations into the fiery pit of hell - would that speech be a good speech because it was given without subterfuge? Would it be qualitatively any different to the same speech given in a different school without the teacher's knowledge?

Agreed.  Again, I'm not saying it was a bad speech -- in fact, I think it was brilliant, informed, and impassioned.

The speech example you give is one that would have been approved by the institution (which is the same reason the public schools ask to review/approve remarks intended as well).  I have no problem with what she said, or even the platform from which she said it. I simply disagree that it's a good idea to employ this tactic to deliver that message.

Her original/approved speech topic (which of course I have not read, though the talent she exhibited in her second speech text implies it would also have been brilliant), as far as I could tell from the article, was not something she was told to settle for ("we don't like your chosen topic, but you're welcome to consider something from this approved list").  I get that she felt she had a new issue for which she felt even stronger than the original issue.  I get that it came up after she had written and received clearance for her original speech.  The timing sucked.  But perhaps if she felt the school would have approved her alternate topic (which they seemed to have done), maybe she could have given someone a heads up?  

[JerryBaumchen 1,318]

10 hours ago, RobertMBlevins said:

They want to legislate morality, which is pretty foolish unless a certain type of morality actually hurts others. It is THEIR morality that they believe should be supreme above all. 

Hi Robert,

Let's call it like it is:  The GOP morality.

Jerry Baumchen

[riggerrob 615]

On 6/6/2021 at 10:54 AM, rcdrury said:

Yeah; kill your kids out of convenience. Pretty courageous!

That reminds me of my ex-wife. She had an abortion many years before I met her. She got the abortion because a child would have been "inconvenient." After meeting her mother and observing the two for a few years, I concluded that my ex- would have done a terrible job of raising children. Thankfully I never got her pregnant.