This week in the strange death of Europe: girl criticises halal meat in religious studies paper and gets disqualified

[Metaphor]

That ... any deviation for an ideal is a necessary indicator of the eminent destruction of civilization is a prime example of snowflakecity.

The disqualification of a student's exam, by the State, for criticising religion may be a non-affair to some people, but to be concerned about it is not the same as believing it is one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.

The title of this thread starts off with "This week in the strange death of Europe:" To claim that Europe is dying because a mistake in grading a paper was rectified is about as hyperbolic as you can get.

The title is a reference to the Douglas Murray book, though it isn't specifically about the themes in his book. It's just a very evocative title. I use it in a general sense to refer to the gradual erosion of free speech rights in Europe and elsewhere in the West. Along with language policing, there is also language mangling, where criticism of religion is identified as 'racist', and to object to the use of that language gets you set upon as 'defending racists', 'xenophobia', etc.

I did not claim Europe was dying because a "mistake" (as if it were a clerical error) in an exam paper was made. The "this week in" is a suggestion that the dying is already in progress; that these events are evidence of it, not the start or cause of it.

 

[Metaphor]

That ... any deviation for an ideal is a necessary indicator of the eminent destruction of civilization is a prime example of snowflakecity.

The disqualification of a student's exam, by the State, for criticising religion may be a non-affair to some people, but to be concerned about it is not the same as believing it is one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.

But that was the error: She didn't criticize religion, she criticized a particular practice of butchering animals. I'm fairly certain that she would have likewise criticized kosher butchering practices as well as more commonplace, non-religious based butchery.

ld is correct in his assessment.

Her comments were perceived as a "racist" attack on Muslims, and it was in a religious studies exam, and her exam was disqualified.

I don't know what your point is.

 

[laughing dog]

You'd have a real point if there was no appeal process. Since there is, you don't.


It was a mistake. That was caught and rectified.

And my question still stands. How did we get to this place? How did we get to a place where exam papers can be disqualified and where it is widely accepted that criticism of religion is racist? Either you have something to say about it or you don't. Attacking me personally doesn't answer that question.

I did say something about it - it was mistake, it was caught and rectified.

Claiming your response is hysterical is not a personal attack. But your snowflake response is duly noted.

Sure, and that's not a personal attack either.

It is a description of your response, not of you. Really, this is not hard to understand. Just like it is not hard to understand that OP situation is not remotely tied to the " strange death of Europe".
BTW, "strange death of Europe" means Europe is dead in English, despite your claim otherwise.

It is getting harder and harder to take your responses seriously.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a description of your response, not of you. Really, this is not hard to understand.

​

​

Oh, I see. I could have avoided my infraction merely if I had called a particular statement a "lie", rather than saying X was a "liar".

Or maybe I should take ronburgundy's approach, and merely call attention to the sustained production of untruthful statements over time, you know, maybe something like "dishonest bullshit","as usual". Because that is also meaningfully different from calling someone a liar, and it also isn't a personal attack.

Just like it is not hard to understand that OP situation is not remotely tied to the " strange death of Europe".
BTW, "strange death of Europe" means Europe is dead in English, despite your claim otherwise.

​

​

Dying can be a lingering process. There's a segment in the 1982 horror film "Creepshow" called "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill". Jordy Verrill is alive for most of the story (though it does indeed conclude with his death). Perhaps Shakespeare too was sloppy when his characters say "I am slain" or "I am killed!". Or perhaps it is absolutely a petty and ridiculous objection to an obviously figurative title to nitpick over the aesthetic choice to use the word 'death' instead of 'dying'.

​

It is getting harder and harder to take your responses seriously.

Strangely enough, I was thinking something very similar.

 

[laughing dog]

Oh, I see. I could have avoided my infraction merely if I had called a particular statement a "lie", rather than saying X was a "liar".

I have no idea what happened to you. But a description of a response is not a personal attack, no matter how much your feelings get hurt.

Dying can be a lingering process...

Death is the endpoint of dying. Death means the dying part is over. Readers are not responsible of correctly interpreting your poor word choice.

Strangely enough, I was thinking something very similar.

Given the evidence in your responses, I strongly suspect a more accurate description is that you were feeling something similar.

 

[Metaphor]

Death is the endpoint of dying. Death means the dying part is over. Readers are not responsible of correctly interpreting your poor word choice.

The objection raised was that the word "death" was a hysterical response to an exam paper "goof up".

I pointed out the reasons why my title was not hysterical, why the exam paper "goof up" was evidence of, not the cause of "death".

Then you separately decided that the aesthetic choice to refer to the figurative "death" of Europe (which I did not describe in the past tense anyway), rather than a choice to refer to the figurative "dying" of Europe needed calling out.

Read some more literature, ld. Your mind may profit from the experience.

 

[Patooka]

The title of this thread starts off with "This week in the strange death of Europe:" To claim that Europe is dying because a mistake in grading a paper was rectified is about as hyperbolic as you can get.

The title is a reference to the Douglas Murray book, though it isn't specifically about the themes in his book. It's just a very evocative title. I use it in a general sense to refer to the gradual erosion of free speech rights in Europe and elsewhere in the West. Along with language policing, there is also language mangling, where criticism of religion is identified as 'racist', and to object to the use of that language gets you set upon as 'defending racists', 'xenophobia', etc.

I did not claim Europe was dying because a "mistake" (as if it were a clerical error) in an exam paper was made. The "this week in" is a suggestion that the dying is already in progress; that these events are evidence of it, not the start or cause of it.

So you already believe the four horsemen have already rocked up then?

EDIT: This thread was started with equating what happened to one student in one school in Eastbourne to the "strange death of Europe", despite the fact that what happened was corrected by the time this thread was created. If that's not hyperbole what is?

 

[Toni]

But that was the error: She didn't criticize religion, she criticized a particular practice of butchering animals. I'm fairly certain that she would have likewise criticized kosher butchering practices as well as more commonplace, non-religious based butchery.

ld is correct in his assessment.

Her comments were perceived as a "racist" attack on Muslims, and it was in a religious studies exam, and her exam was disqualified.

I don't know what your point is.

That ld was correct. Someone made a stupid judgement error that was ultimately corrected. The judgement error was believing that she was criticizing a religion rather than the practice of butchering animals. It was stupid and minor and hardly any indication that sharia law is about to be imposed.

That was my point.

 

[Metaphor]

The title of this thread starts off with "This week in the strange death of Europe:" To claim that Europe is dying because a mistake in grading a paper was rectified is about as hyperbolic as you can get.

The title is a reference to the Douglas Murray book, though it isn't specifically about the themes in his book. It's just a very evocative title. I use it in a general sense to refer to the gradual erosion of free speech rights in Europe and elsewhere in the West. Along with language policing, there is also language mangling, where criticism of religion is identified as 'racist', and to object to the use of that language gets you set upon as 'defending racists', 'xenophobia', etc.

I did not claim Europe was dying because a "mistake" (as if it were a clerical error) in an exam paper was made. The "this week in" is a suggestion that the dying is already in progress; that these events are evidence of it, not the start or cause of it.

So you already believe the four horsemen have already rocked up then?

EDIT: This thread was started with equating what happened to one student in one school in Eastbourne to the "strange death of Europe", despite the fact that what happened was corrected by the time this thread was created. If that's not hyperbole what is?

I'm sorry you simply don't understand what "equating" means. If I based the idea that Europe was dying because some fanatic disqualified a religious studies paper, that would be hyperbole, but I didn't make that claim. "This week in" should have tipped you off that this event is one event in a long line of events that are evidence of the strange death of Europe, and it's a dying by degrees. Next week there'll be more events that also point to the erosion of free speech in the West. Each individual event isn't the death of Europe itself.

 

[Metaphor]

But that was the error: She didn't criticize religion, she criticized a particular practice of butchering animals. I'm fairly certain that she would have likewise criticized kosher butchering practices as well as more commonplace, non-religious based butchery.

ld is correct in his assessment.

Her comments were perceived as a "racist" attack on Muslims, and it was in a religious studies exam, and her exam was disqualified.

I don't know what your point is.

That ld was correct. Someone made a stupid judgement error that was ultimately corrected. The judgement error was believing that she was criticizing a religion rather than the practice of butchering animals. It was stupid and minor and hardly any indication that sharia law is about to be imposed.

That was my point.

She was criticising a religion. Specifically, a religious belief and a religious practice. The "error" by the exam marker was to equate that criticism with racism and disqualify the paper. Further errors were made: either the paper was disqualified on the basis of the judgment of a single marker, or further people up the chain agreed with the disqualification. Either way that points to a problem, and not a "minor" one (though definitely a stupid one).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How do you feel about kosher meat? And what is it about halal standards that you think makes the slaughtering animals in the food industry less humane?

Modern meat practices kill the animal instantly. Halal doesn't.

 

[Toni]

That ld was correct. Someone made a stupid judgement error that was ultimately corrected. The judgement error was believing that she was criticizing a religion rather than the practice of butchering animals. It was stupid and minor and hardly any indication that sharia law is about to be imposed.

That was my point.

She was criticising a religion. Specifically, a religious belief and a religious practice. The "error" by the exam marker was to equate that criticism with racism and disqualify the paper. Further errors were made: either the paper was disqualified on the basis of the judgment of a single marker, or further people up the chain agreed with the disqualification. Either way that points to a problem, and not a "minor" one (though definitely a stupid one).

She said she found the idea of halal meat disgusting. We have no idea what the context was, whether this statement was made only about halal meat and that she thought that kosher meat was fine or conventionally butchered meat was grooves but given that she is a devout vegetarian, that’s unlikely. It wasn’t the halal part that she found disgusting: it was the butchering part.

I am willing to bet $10 US that if you went to any secondary school on your continent and asked random students what they thought of butchering animals by any means, at least half the girls would say that it is disgusting. So would the boys if they weren’t being too cool to admit that the idea of butchering animals is pretty gross. I just thought of one caveat: if the school is located on a cattle station, the percentage would likely decrease to 10%. In the US the percentage would likely approach 100% outside of farming communities.

Heck, if you wanted to poll myself, my husband and all of our children and their significant others, 90% would make pretty disgusted faces if you tried to talk about butchering practices of anybody.

But congratulations for sharing the same sensibilities as the person who failed her in the basis of that comment.

 

[Metaphor]

But congratulations for sharing the same sensibilities as the person who failed her in the basis of that comment.

I can't believe you think she was failed because she said butchering animals was disgusting.

It was a religious studies paper. She made specific criticisms about halal butchery. The initial disqualification specifically cited her "racist" comments about Islam.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say I share the same "mindset" as the person who failed her. Halal butchery makes the meat industry less humane than it otherwise would be, and I'm not surprised a vegetarian pointed this out in a religious studies exam.

 

[Toni]

But congratulations for sharing the same sensibilities as the person who failed her in the basis of that comment.

I can't believe you think she was failed because she said butchering animals was disgusting.

It was a religious studies paper. She made specific criticisms about halal butchery. The initial disqualification specifically cited her "racist" comments about Islam.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say I share the same "mindset" as the person who failed her. Halal butchery makes the meat industry less humane than it otherwise would be, and I'm not surprised a vegetarian pointed this out in a religious studies exam.

I don’t believe that you don’t know that at least 95 16 year old girls out of 100 would describe any method of butchering animals as disgusting.

It is possible that she went into more detail criticizing Islam, but that wasn’t mentioned in the article that you linked. If you have more information now is the time to share a link. I’m

 

[Metaphor]

But congratulations for sharing the same sensibilities as the person who failed her in the basis of that comment.

I can't believe you think she was failed because she said butchering animals was disgusting.

It was a religious studies paper. She made specific criticisms about halal butchery. The initial disqualification specifically cited her "racist" comments about Islam.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say I share the same "mindset" as the person who failed her. Halal butchery makes the meat industry less humane than it otherwise would be, and I'm not surprised a vegetarian pointed this out in a religious studies exam.

I don’t believe that you don’t know that at least 95 16 year old girls out of 100 would describe any method of butchering animals as disgusting.

It is possible that she went into more detail criticizing Islam, but that wasn’t mentioned in the article that you linked. If you have more information now is the time to share a link. I’m

I don't know what this means or how it's relevant. The student was accused of making "obscene racial comments". It's in the OP. Calling halal butchery disgusting is not an obscene racial comment.

 

[Axulus]

The point is that the "goof up" is emblematic of the mindset of many on the political left in the West that any criticism of the practices or specific doctorines of Islam is "racist". It also highlights the failure of the education system to teach people the difference between criticizing and mocking ideas vs insulting/degrading the people who hold them.

Did her paper say that Muslims who support and/or engage in Halal butchering practices are disgusting as people? That would be crossing over into bigotry (although if the practice is ethically bad enough, it might not be). But she didn't say that.

Sure, if she fails to compare/contrast Halal to non-Halal butchering methods and support why the non-Halal methods are ethically better and less disgusting, mark her down on points. But to DQ the paper? WTF?

 

[Axulus]

Why are people so focused on the title of the thread? It was obviously hyperbolic to grab attention. How nitpicky can you get?

 

[Toni]

I don’t believe that you don’t know that at least 95 16 year old girls out of 100 would describe any method of butchering animals as disgusting.

It is possible that she went into more detail criticizing Islam, but that wasn’t mentioned in the article that you linked. If you have more information now is the time to share a link. I’m

I don't know what this means or how it's relevant. The student was accused of making "obscene racial comments". It's in the OP. Calling halal butchery disgusting is not an obscene racial comment.

Exactly.

Unless there was more written than reported in the OP link, the entire ‘controversy’ was beyond stupid.

 

[Toni]

Why are people so focused on the title of the thread? It was obviously hyperbolic to grab attention. How nitpicky can you get?

Exactly.

 

[Metaphor]

I don’t believe that you don’t know that at least 95 16 year old girls out of 100 would describe any method of butchering animals as disgusting.

It is possible that she went into more detail criticizing Islam, but that wasn’t mentioned in the article that you linked. If you have more information now is the time to share a link. I’m

I don't know what this means or how it's relevant. The student was accused of making "obscene racial comments". It's in the OP. Calling halal butchery disgusting is not an obscene racial comment.

Exactly.

Unless there was more written than reported in the OP link, the entire ‘controversy’ was beyond stupid.

Yes, and yet the student was still disqualified and the exam marker and at least one other person thought it was justified.