Ignorance? Choosing to not contribute to charity is well within DotP's rights. I choose not to donate to a lot of charities, that doesn't make me ignorant. The tsunami disaster may be the biggest natural disaster in a very long time, but not everyone is going to give to relief funds and charities for it.
Unless I misunderstood your comment.
The way he stated his original post sounded like that the matter wasn't "important", therefore he chose to ignore the weight of this disaster.
I think people (students in this case) who do not desire to donate should keep that matter quiet and not try to influence others to not donate.
They wheren't dismissing the importance, they where offended by the fact that they where basically ordered to give up their money.
But no one was ordered. The teacher told them that someone was coming in the next day to collect a dollar. Some people refused. They still have their money. If they were really ordered, they also would have been forced to give no matter what their opinion was.
As far as I'm concerned, they were given a choice. The teacher just assumed that no one would refuse to give even $1.
There are two issues at hand: Whether he was being whiny, and whether he should have given the dollar.
The first answer is yes, the second answer is:not if he didn't want to.
It seems that DotP was being an exhibiitonist. The rebel not giving in to the Man, if you will. DotP, I fully support your decision not to donate, I truly do: it is your money. However, there were better ways to go about it. When she asked you to donate...just don't. She cannot force you to, and if she tries, refuse some more. But creating a show out of it was innappropriate.
HR: It seems that you think he was wrong on BOTH issues: that he was whiny, and that he SHOULD have donated the dollar. I see where you're coming from---Hell, I may even have donated---however, it is not because of moral guilt. Arguing that someone should do something, using guilt as a tool, is wrong.
I think, by "whether he should have given a dollar", you mean "whether it was right for him to be forced to give a dollar". This plus the old issue of his teacher calling his beliefs wrong pretty much sums this thread up. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
So, 1. Was DotP being whiny? (yes)
2. Was it right for him to be forced to give a dollar and be told his beliefs were wrong? (no)
3. Should he have given a dollar (in a moral sense)? (most likely yes)
I think, by "whether he should have given a dollar", you mean "whether it was right for him to be forced to give a dollar". This plus the old issue of his teacher calling his beliefs wrong pretty much sums this thread up. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
No. It is pretty much given that no one should be forced to donate. The issue being argued is whether he should have done so because of the morals involved, and whether he was justified in his arguement with the teacher.
Here's my opinion:
DotP shouldn't have gotten that kind of treatment.
Should he have donated? Yeah, probably.
Me, I know I would not donate just because I was pissed off they were doing that - and then send $25 to a charity myself.
I think he's justified. I know if someone said something akin to that to me, I would just not do it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
my mouth is full of winsome lies -
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
Highroller:In a way. I still stand by what I said, but it is true that I did not have to go into the argument. However, I believe in my rights, and of course, I loev to argue.
+t!:Am I supposed to feel sorry for you? Is that an attempt to guilt me into giving money? I hope not, because that's just sad.
sidar:I wan't saying it wasn't imporrtant. I was saying that there are other chirties that equally deserve my money.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Loonook > Jesus
Loonook = Nothing
Nothing > Jesus
Well, seems like spoiler chains(And with them my old sig) have been broken by The Man.
The Man is a Jackass and apparently he is also a Communist.
GET OUT OF MY HEAD YOU MODS! MY SIG IS NOT FOR EDITING!:mad:
Currently accepting disciples. Inquire within. ORDER THE CAKE DAMNIT!
But no one was ordered. The teacher told them that someone was coming in the next day to collect a dollar. Some people refused. They still have their money. If they were really ordered, they also would have been forced to give no matter what their opinion was.
As far as I'm concerned, they were given a choice. The teacher just assumed that no one would refuse to give even $1.
... You do know about how people can imply things, right? Like if your superior offacer says 'I think ___ would volenteer', even if it's not an order, ____ had better volenteer or he's in so much ****...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05 Cool stuff here.
... You do know about how people can imply things, right? Like if your superior offacer says 'I think ___ would volenteer', even if it's not an order, ____ had better volenteer or he's in so much ****...
Well as nice as that sounds in theory, in reality there's not so much Mrs. Teacher could have done to him if he refused. She can imply until her face is blue, but at the end of the day his money is his money and she has absolutely no way of forcing him to do anything with it that he doesn't want to do. She lacks any leverage because she can't exactly send him to detention for not giving to charity. Without some kind of leverage to give her control, she has no way to force him and therefore is in no position to order him to do it. Even teachers don't have the power to control their students' money.
Anyone who falls for "implied orders", in my eyes, probably would've done it anyway. That or they can't stand up for themselves. But I don't think either is the case here.
Well as nice as that sounds in theory, in reality there's not so much Mrs. Teacher could have done to him if he refused. She can imply until her face is blue, but at the end of the day his money is his money and she has absolutely no way of forcing him to do anything with it that he doesn't want to do. She lacks any leverage because she can't exactly send him to detention for not giving to charity. Without some kind of leverage to give her control, she has no way to force him and therefore is in no position to order him to do it. Even teachers don't have the power to control their students' money.
Anyone who falls for "implied orders", in my eyes, probably would've done it anyway. That or they can't stand up for themselves. But I don't think either is the case here.
Not taking directly illegal actions doesn't make her actions right. If your teacher yells "I hate ***s" every morning when you walk in the classroom, she has the freedom of speech to do so, but isn't it still incredibly wrong? Saying something, even while not directly illegal, can be wrong.
Not taking directly illegal actions doesn't make her actions right. If your teacher yells "I hate ***s" every morning when you walk in the classroom, she has the freedom of speech to do so, but isn't it still incredibly wrong? Saying something, even while not directly illegal, can be wrong.
Sure, but the burden of proof is still on you to show that what she was doing was wrong.
Trying to resolve this question reflects deeply upon what we believe the role of teachers should be.
Should they challenge our beliefs, or should they simply encourage them?
Should they merely nurture and coddle us, keep us safe within our comfort zones, or should they expose us to new and possibly controversial, possibly inflammatory ideas for the sake of learning?
Should they be allowed to confront students, or should they simply allow their beliefs to remain unaltered?
Should education be limited to the mind, the purely academic, or should it encompass issues of the soul and spirit and heart where it is more difficult to determine right and wrong? Should the difficulty and delicacy of these questions, and the risk that someone might be offended dissuade us from even attempting to broach these kinds of subjects?
And why is it that teacher's more well-developed opinions of right and wrong must necessarily be kept to themselves for fear of contradicting their students?
Lastly, was the teacher addressing him in her capacity as a teacher, or was she engaging him in discussion as a fellow human being? Keep in mind that this exercise wasn't intended to be a public discussion until the student made it so. At that moment, their relationship was not one of teacher and student, but of one human being to another. Surely we shouldn't try to forbid all such interactions from taking place within a school setting: teachers are human beings in addition to their role as mentor just as students are more than simple repositories for new data, and forbidding them to be who they are simply because of their profession would be an injustice of the highest magnitude. Students and teachers WILL interact with one another as human beings as well as on a professional basis, there is no practical use in preventing it, no way that it would be even possible, and good reason not to try.
You can believe that if you want to. However, I'm pretty sure that there's zero evidence of the Sumerians believing in or even knowing about Jehovah.
This means that your belief that you've just stated above is not evidentiary, but merely a conclusion that you've decided is sensible; while concluding that the Sumerians derived their notions about right and wrong using their own concepts of reason and their own pagan religion is both evidentiary and sensible.
I'd agree that those two factors were the source of their morality. But I'd also hypothesize that the Sumerians' reason was affected in large part by their conscience, just as with any other human being.
Alright, suppose that when the choice, for you, is a matter of insignificant inconvenience versus saving a life, the choice, for you, is clear.
This is a different category of argument or a different category of morality than what the thread's anecdote presents. The anecdote is not about a choice for you.
Instead, the anecdote is about a matter that a teacher believes is of almost insignificant inconvenience for someone else versus the theory presented by her that perhaps someone's life might be aided.
It's completely different. It's not her inconvenience; her beliefs about what inconveniences him are only a theory; it's for him to decide whether he's inconvenienced and not her; there's no guarantee that a dollar will in fact save anyone's life; there's no guarantee what she's going to do with the dollar; there's no guarantee even that a dollar will make a difference.
But I believe that when he stated that he did not want to give a dollar, she decided that he deserved to be unhappy, if for one class. I don't think that's legitimately her decision to make.
I think she decided that he needed to question his values, not that he should be unhappy. I don't see her as maliciously striking out at him with the intention of causing pain, I see her as trying to correct a possible gross misconception on his part by sharing her own opinion.
BTW, props to the moderators here for being a great deal less heavy-handed than the staff at MTGnews. It was always annoying to be just on the brink of a thought-provoking, interesting debate only to have it clamped down on by moderators for fear that someone would be offended.
"You are wrong, Wrongy McWrongerstein. You go to Hell, you go to hell and you die" != "I think it's really wrong how you refuse to give up one little dollar for the relief effort"
Not taking directly illegal actions doesn't make her actions right. If your teacher yells "I hate ***s" every morning when you walk in the classroom, she has the freedom of speech to do so, but isn't it still incredibly wrong? Saying something, even while not directly illegal, can be wrong.
My point wasn't about whether or not the teacher was wrong to tell DotP that his opinion was wrong, I was trying to refute the point another poster made that she was forcing DotP to donate. She certainly wasn't forcing her students to donate the first day when she announced it, though she was surprised that there were people unwilling to donate. And the second day when she told DotP that she though his opinion was sad and wrong, I still don't see that as forcing him to donate. Some equate her words to trying to guilt him into contributing, but I just don't see that at all. Not only was there no way she could actually force students to help, but it (to me) clearly wasn't what she was trying to do.
And I'm not one to think that telling someone their opinion is wrong is all that wrong in itself. I tell people that their opinions are wrong a lot in life, and I think that they are in turn free to say the same to me. And being a teacher doesn't make this less true, I don't think.
[quoet]"You are wrong, Wrongy McWrongerstein. You go to Hell, you go to hell and you die" != "I think it's really wrong how you refuse to give up one little dollar for the relief effort"[/quote]
My point remains the same. Challenging a belief is not the same as saying a person's belief and by proxy the person himself is wrong.
My point wasn't about whether or not the teacher was wrong to tell DotP that his opinion was wrong, I was trying to refute the point another poster made that she was forcing DotP to donate. She certainly wasn't forcing her students to donate the first day when she announced it, though she was surprised that there were people unwilling to donate. And the second day when she told DotP that she though his opinion was sad and wrong, I still don't see that as forcing him to donate. Some equate her words to trying to guilt him into contributing, but I just don't see that at all. Not only was there no way she could actually force students to help, but it (to me) clearly wasn't what she was trying to do.
Again to use an extreme speech example, this is like the defense White Supremacist leaders mount when they are charged as excessory's to murder by 'ordering' violent actions through their speeches. Technically they don't say "Do X, Do Y", they just incite general violent action and use the fact they aren't the same as a defense.
She wouldn't have bothered saying anything the 2nd day if she didn't want to make DotP donate.
Again to use an extreme speech example, this is like the defense White Supremacist leaders mount when they are charged as excessory's to murder by 'ordering' violent actions through their speeches. Technically they don't say "Do X, Do Y", they just incite general violent action and use the fact they aren't the same as a defense.
(N.B. It's accessory. Excess is something in an amount more than needed. )
Actually, the KKK and Neo-Nazis encourage violence. White supremesists on a rutine basis tell their followers to attack the targeted groups. Recently, there was a "public meeting" of the two mentioned groups in Valley Forge National Park, which is about 1/2 an hour from my house. So it was on the news that night, although I am willing to bet a fair amount of you heard about it.. I heard several references to killing African-Americans and well as Jews. So what was said by Stax isn't true. However, saying someone should die is hard to punish, even if there is a murder. This is why white supremasists aren't tried for these things. I know this because my dad is a retired cop and because I spend a fair portion of m down time researching random things.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Who woulda guessed?
Jet black eyes. Deep thought. Riddles of life unravvel.
So what was said by Stax isn't true. However, saying someone should die is hard to punish, even if there is a murder. This is why white supremasists aren't tried for these things. I know this because my dad is a retired cop and because I spend a fair portion of m down time researching random things.
Actually, it's perfectly true. The defense almost always used is that they have the right to say "Kill all the Jews" without it being evidence they ordered any particular murder. They didn't say "Kill Jewdie Goldmanstein" after all, they just said "Kill all Jews".
You think his beliefs weren't challenged by that?
*hillbilly noises* Wow... You seeeeure are smart!
My point, which is quite obvious, is that you get to challenge beliefs, not go further. You're challenging someone's belief's by saying "Gay's are the Spawn of Satan", but that's not cool for a teacher to say.
She wouldn't have bothered saying anything the 2nd day if she didn't want to make DotP donate.
The problem I have with this statement is that she couldn't make him donate anything, and she has to know this. I believe she was hoping he would change his mind and choose to donate and when he didn't she was thrown by one of her students making the "wrong" choice. Whether or not the choice to not help out is wrong is something I'd rather not get into because it comes to to each individual making their own decisions, but we can safely say the teacher believed donating was the right thing to do. It's also easy to imagine that she never even considered the possibility of people choosing not to contribute ($1 certainly isn't asking much), in her position I'd probably assume the same thing. When faced with the reality, the teacher tried to get people to change their minds. She may not have done it gracefully or objectively, but I still don't see it as an order, implied or otherwise. Of course she wanted them to donate, she admits to seeing that as the right choice, but forcing them to do something and trying to get them to think about their choice aren't the same thing. They may have the same goal (getting the party to do what you expect them to), but the teacher's method allowed for her students to choose to maintain their refusal to donate. She just wanted them to really think about that choice. Were she trying to force her students, what their beliefs were wouldn't have mattered, she get their money and not concern herself with their opinions.
The problem I have with this statement is that she couldn't make him donate anything, and she has to know this. I believe she was hoping he would change his mind and choose to donate and when he didn't she was thrown by one of her students making the "wrong" choice. Whether or not the choice to not help out is wrong is something I'd rather not get into because it comes to to each individual making their own decisions, but we can safely say the teacher believed donating was the right thing to do. It's also easy to imagine that she never even considered the possibility of people choosing not to contribute ($1 certainly isn't asking much), in her position I'd probably assume the same thing. When faced with the reality, the teacher tried to get people to change their minds. She may not have done it gracefully or objectively, but I still don't see it as an order, implied or otherwise. Of course she wanted them to donate, she admits to seeing that as the right choice, but forcing them to do something and trying to get them to think about their choice aren't the same thing. They may have the same goal (getting the party to do what you expect them to), but the teacher's method allowed for her students to choose to maintain their refusal to donate. She just wanted them to really think about that choice. Were she trying to force her students, what their beliefs were wouldn't have mattered, she get their money and not concern herself with their opinions.
The teacher can believe whatever she wants. She can believe the sky is made of strawberries for all I care. If she is a math teacher, her responsibility is to teach math. (Repeat for whatever she is a teacher of). Even if she was an Ethics and Morality teacher, she still cannot foist her beliefs upon another. She cannot say "this is what I think and therefore it is right", because it is not justifiable fact. Teacher's deal in the buisness of fact, something a personal belief is not.
My point, which is quite obvious, is that you get to challenge beliefs, not go further. You're challenging someone's belief's by saying "Gay's are the Spawn of Satan", but that's not cool for a teacher to say.
I see that you failed to intrepret the ":wise:". You'll have to go lurk at MT, then get back to me on that point.
Ignoring your resortion to politically correct, substanceless attempts to distort the debate for the moment, the true heart of your argument seems to be that there are limits to which teachers must keep when challenging students, and those limits are defined by whether or not the teacher is offending the student.
As I stated earlier, I don't care whether the student is slightly offended or jolted, if they have a greater opportunity for learning than if the teacher remained silent. You, on the other hand, believe that if a student's privelege not to be removed from their comfort zone is in danger, that that trumps most other considerations, even if it means their opportunity to learn is somewhat lessened. You would instead support less intrusive methods, which may ultimately be less effective.
Quote from Stax »
Teacher's deal in the buisness of fact, something a personal belief is not.
But as humans we may deal with whatever we like, without restriction. As already stated before numerous times in this thread, she was acting in her capacity as a human being once he raised the argument with her, not in her capacity as a teacher.
The teacher can believe whatever she wants. She can believe the sky is made of strawberries for all I care. If she is a math teacher, her responsibility is to teach math. (Repeat for whatever she is a teacher of). Even if she was an Ethics and Morality teacher, she still cannot foist her beliefs upon another. She cannot say "this is what I think and therefore it is right", because it is not justifiable fact. Teacher's deal in the buisness of fact, something a personal belief is not.
A standard teacher sticks too mere facts. An okay teacher might involve some kind of extra theory on top of that or get the odd student interested enough to look into things further on their own. But a good teacher goes above all that, challenging each student, building their minds beyond simple equations and passages from Shakespeare. To say that teachers should stick only to the facts is to narrow the effect of teaching and truly inhibit the growth of children.
For me teachers are charged with the total growth of a child, both with standard education and with the development of critical thought. Simple facts may take care of the first, but not the second. Only challenging students to think beyond what their books say can help them forge critical thought, even if challenging students requires un-PC statements or taking students out of their 'comfort zone'.
Some of the best teachers I've ever had would have been despicable to you, more than likely. They'd begin a class about Jane Austen or the Bronte Sisters by saying something like "Bah, all women deserve to be chained up and controlled by the men in their lives!" This would of course incite a near-riot, everyone quick to disagree. Which is exactly the point, the teacher would say "Why?", making us actually think about our positions as well as colorfully showing what the lives of women were like 200 years ago. Is this unorthodox? Definately. Were people insulted? Each and every time. Did parents complain? Hardly if ever. But did we learn something a book couldn't teach? Absolutely. By challenging our beliefs by making outlandish comments, we had to develop skills to counter that argument and "convince" the teacher. I hated those teachers then, but now I know I learned way more from them than I ever did from teachers who stuck to the safety of books.
You'll probably disagree with me, but that's cool. I tend to have wierd and radical beliefs. :redface:
Another teacher of mine mentioned the 1$ thing again(Aparently the first teacher was mis-informed, the people are coming tommorow). She mentioned it, and let it drop. No pressure. I might even give a dollar tommorow if I have one handy at the time.Why? Because this time around it's completely my choice, and nobody is looking down on me because of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Loonook > Jesus
Loonook = Nothing
Nothing > Jesus
Well, seems like spoiler chains(And with them my old sig) have been broken by The Man.
The Man is a Jackass and apparently he is also a Communist.
GET OUT OF MY HEAD YOU MODS! MY SIG IS NOT FOR EDITING!:mad:
Currently accepting disciples. Inquire within. ORDER THE CAKE DAMNIT!
Teachers shouldnt persue a topic against a students will. In this case convinceing someone to give a dollar when clearly this someone doesnt want to. Im sure if a charity like that came around i wouldnt mind donating a measly $1 but if someone keeped bugging me to do it i probally wouldnt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Votan for my Avvy and banner.:symg:
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The way he stated his original post sounded like that the matter wasn't "important", therefore he chose to ignore the weight of this disaster.
I think people (students in this case) who do not desire to donate should keep that matter quiet and not try to influence others to not donate.
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
But no one was ordered. The teacher told them that someone was coming in the next day to collect a dollar. Some people refused. They still have their money. If they were really ordered, they also would have been forced to give no matter what their opinion was.
As far as I'm concerned, they were given a choice. The teacher just assumed that no one would refuse to give even $1.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
I think, by "whether he should have given a dollar", you mean "whether it was right for him to be forced to give a dollar". This plus the old issue of his teacher calling his beliefs wrong pretty much sums this thread up. (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
So, 1. Was DotP being whiny? (yes)
2. Was it right for him to be forced to give a dollar and be told his beliefs were wrong? (no)
3. Should he have given a dollar (in a moral sense)? (most likely yes)
Good enough for everyone?
DotP shouldn't have gotten that kind of treatment.
Should he have donated? Yeah, probably.
Me, I know I would not donate just because I was pissed off they were doing that - and then send $25 to a charity myself.
I think he's justified. I know if someone said something akin to that to me, I would just not do it.
and eyes are full of death besides
but luckily the soul is wise -
it sees beyond my blindness and
forced failure makes a better guise,
so as i come again alive,
it feels like life's a decent plan
+t!:Am I supposed to feel sorry for you? Is that an attempt to guilt me into giving money? I hope not, because that's just sad.
sidar:I wan't saying it wasn't imporrtant. I was saying that there are other chirties that equally deserve my money.
Loonook = Nothing
Nothing > Jesus
Currently accepting disciples. Inquire within.
ORDER THE CAKE DAMNIT!
... You do know about how people can imply things, right? Like if your superior offacer says 'I think ___ would volenteer', even if it's not an order, ____ had better volenteer or he's in so much ****...
Possibly the last remaining member of the Banana Clan (+1)
Banana of the Month Feb '05
Cool stuff here.
Well as nice as that sounds in theory, in reality there's not so much Mrs. Teacher could have done to him if he refused. She can imply until her face is blue, but at the end of the day his money is his money and she has absolutely no way of forcing him to do anything with it that he doesn't want to do. She lacks any leverage because she can't exactly send him to detention for not giving to charity. Without some kind of leverage to give her control, she has no way to force him and therefore is in no position to order him to do it. Even teachers don't have the power to control their students' money.
Anyone who falls for "implied orders", in my eyes, probably would've done it anyway. That or they can't stand up for themselves. But I don't think either is the case here.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Not taking directly illegal actions doesn't make her actions right. If your teacher yells "I hate ***s" every morning when you walk in the classroom, she has the freedom of speech to do so, but isn't it still incredibly wrong? Saying something, even while not directly illegal, can be wrong.
Sure, but the burden of proof is still on you to show that what she was doing was wrong.
Trying to resolve this question reflects deeply upon what we believe the role of teachers should be.
Should they challenge our beliefs, or should they simply encourage them?
Should they merely nurture and coddle us, keep us safe within our comfort zones, or should they expose us to new and possibly controversial, possibly inflammatory ideas for the sake of learning?
Should they be allowed to confront students, or should they simply allow their beliefs to remain unaltered?
Should education be limited to the mind, the purely academic, or should it encompass issues of the soul and spirit and heart where it is more difficult to determine right and wrong? Should the difficulty and delicacy of these questions, and the risk that someone might be offended dissuade us from even attempting to broach these kinds of subjects?
And why is it that teacher's more well-developed opinions of right and wrong must necessarily be kept to themselves for fear of contradicting their students?
Lastly, was the teacher addressing him in her capacity as a teacher, or was she engaging him in discussion as a fellow human being? Keep in mind that this exercise wasn't intended to be a public discussion until the student made it so. At that moment, their relationship was not one of teacher and student, but of one human being to another. Surely we shouldn't try to forbid all such interactions from taking place within a school setting: teachers are human beings in addition to their role as mentor just as students are more than simple repositories for new data, and forbidding them to be who they are simply because of their profession would be an injustice of the highest magnitude. Students and teachers WILL interact with one another as human beings as well as on a professional basis, there is no practical use in preventing it, no way that it would be even possible, and good reason not to try.
I'd agree that those two factors were the source of their morality. But I'd also hypothesize that the Sumerians' reason was affected in large part by their conscience, just as with any other human being.
I think she decided that he needed to question his values, not that he should be unhappy. I don't see her as maliciously striking out at him with the intention of causing pain, I see her as trying to correct a possible gross misconception on his part by sharing her own opinion.
BTW, props to the moderators here for being a great deal less heavy-handed than the staff at MTGnews. It was always annoying to be just on the brink of a thought-provoking, interesting debate only to have it clamped down on by moderators for fear that someone would be offended.
Suggesting and Challenging is not the same thing as saying "You are wrong, Wrongy McWrongerstein. You go to Hell, you go to hell and you die."
My point wasn't about whether or not the teacher was wrong to tell DotP that his opinion was wrong, I was trying to refute the point another poster made that she was forcing DotP to donate. She certainly wasn't forcing her students to donate the first day when she announced it, though she was surprised that there were people unwilling to donate. And the second day when she told DotP that she though his opinion was sad and wrong, I still don't see that as forcing him to donate. Some equate her words to trying to guilt him into contributing, but I just don't see that at all. Not only was there no way she could actually force students to help, but it (to me) clearly wasn't what she was trying to do.
And I'm not one to think that telling someone their opinion is wrong is all that wrong in itself. I tell people that their opinions are wrong a lot in life, and I think that they are in turn free to say the same to me. And being a teacher doesn't make this less true, I don't think.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
My point remains the same. Challenging a belief is not the same as saying a person's belief and by proxy the person himself is wrong.
Again to use an extreme speech example, this is like the defense White Supremacist leaders mount when they are charged as excessory's to murder by 'ordering' violent actions through their speeches. Technically they don't say "Do X, Do Y", they just incite general violent action and use the fact they aren't the same as a defense.
She wouldn't have bothered saying anything the 2nd day if she didn't want to make DotP donate.
You think his beliefs weren't challenged by that? :wise:
(N.B. It's accessory. Excess is something in an amount more than needed. )
Actually, the KKK and Neo-Nazis encourage violence. White supremesists on a rutine basis tell their followers to attack the targeted groups. Recently, there was a "public meeting" of the two mentioned groups in Valley Forge National Park, which is about 1/2 an hour from my house. So it was on the news that night, although I am willing to bet a fair amount of you heard about it.. I heard several references to killing African-Americans and well as Jews. So what was said by Stax isn't true. However, saying someone should die is hard to punish, even if there is a murder. This is why white supremasists aren't tried for these things. I know this because my dad is a retired cop and because I spend a fair portion of m down time researching random things.
Jet black eyes. Deep thought. Riddles of life unravvel.
Sorry...
Actually, it's perfectly true. The defense almost always used is that they have the right to say "Kill all the Jews" without it being evidence they ordered any particular murder. They didn't say "Kill Jewdie Goldmanstein" after all, they just said "Kill all Jews".
*hillbilly noises* Wow... You seeeeure are smart!
My point, which is quite obvious, is that you get to challenge beliefs, not go further. You're challenging someone's belief's by saying "Gay's are the Spawn of Satan", but that's not cool for a teacher to say.
The problem I have with this statement is that she couldn't make him donate anything, and she has to know this. I believe she was hoping he would change his mind and choose to donate and when he didn't she was thrown by one of her students making the "wrong" choice. Whether or not the choice to not help out is wrong is something I'd rather not get into because it comes to to each individual making their own decisions, but we can safely say the teacher believed donating was the right thing to do. It's also easy to imagine that she never even considered the possibility of people choosing not to contribute ($1 certainly isn't asking much), in her position I'd probably assume the same thing. When faced with the reality, the teacher tried to get people to change their minds. She may not have done it gracefully or objectively, but I still don't see it as an order, implied or otherwise. Of course she wanted them to donate, she admits to seeing that as the right choice, but forcing them to do something and trying to get them to think about their choice aren't the same thing. They may have the same goal (getting the party to do what you expect them to), but the teacher's method allowed for her students to choose to maintain their refusal to donate. She just wanted them to really think about that choice. Were she trying to force her students, what their beliefs were wouldn't have mattered, she get their money and not concern herself with their opinions.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
The teacher can believe whatever she wants. She can believe the sky is made of strawberries for all I care. If she is a math teacher, her responsibility is to teach math. (Repeat for whatever she is a teacher of). Even if she was an Ethics and Morality teacher, she still cannot foist her beliefs upon another. She cannot say "this is what I think and therefore it is right", because it is not justifiable fact. Teacher's deal in the buisness of fact, something a personal belief is not.
I see that you failed to intrepret the ":wise:". You'll have to go lurk at MT, then get back to me on that point.
Ignoring your resortion to politically correct, substanceless attempts to distort the debate for the moment, the true heart of your argument seems to be that there are limits to which teachers must keep when challenging students, and those limits are defined by whether or not the teacher is offending the student.
As I stated earlier, I don't care whether the student is slightly offended or jolted, if they have a greater opportunity for learning than if the teacher remained silent. You, on the other hand, believe that if a student's privelege not to be removed from their comfort zone is in danger, that that trumps most other considerations, even if it means their opportunity to learn is somewhat lessened. You would instead support less intrusive methods, which may ultimately be less effective.
But as humans we may deal with whatever we like, without restriction. As already stated before numerous times in this thread, she was acting in her capacity as a human being once he raised the argument with her, not in her capacity as a teacher.
A standard teacher sticks too mere facts. An okay teacher might involve some kind of extra theory on top of that or get the odd student interested enough to look into things further on their own. But a good teacher goes above all that, challenging each student, building their minds beyond simple equations and passages from Shakespeare. To say that teachers should stick only to the facts is to narrow the effect of teaching and truly inhibit the growth of children.
For me teachers are charged with the total growth of a child, both with standard education and with the development of critical thought. Simple facts may take care of the first, but not the second. Only challenging students to think beyond what their books say can help them forge critical thought, even if challenging students requires un-PC statements or taking students out of their 'comfort zone'.
Some of the best teachers I've ever had would have been despicable to you, more than likely. They'd begin a class about Jane Austen or the Bronte Sisters by saying something like "Bah, all women deserve to be chained up and controlled by the men in their lives!" This would of course incite a near-riot, everyone quick to disagree. Which is exactly the point, the teacher would say "Why?", making us actually think about our positions as well as colorfully showing what the lives of women were like 200 years ago. Is this unorthodox? Definately. Were people insulted? Each and every time. Did parents complain? Hardly if ever. But did we learn something a book couldn't teach? Absolutely. By challenging our beliefs by making outlandish comments, we had to develop skills to counter that argument and "convince" the teacher. I hated those teachers then, but now I know I learned way more from them than I ever did from teachers who stuck to the safety of books.
You'll probably disagree with me, but that's cool. I tend to have wierd and radical beliefs. :redface:
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
A good example:
Another teacher of mine mentioned the 1$ thing again(Aparently the first teacher was mis-informed, the people are coming tommorow). She mentioned it, and let it drop. No pressure. I might even give a dollar tommorow if I have one handy at the time.Why? Because this time around it's completely my choice, and nobody is looking down on me because of it.
Loonook = Nothing
Nothing > Jesus
Currently accepting disciples. Inquire within.
ORDER THE CAKE DAMNIT!