It took me a while to get around to responding to this latest response, frankly because it was almost not worth responding to. This time his response being one filled with attempted ambiguities and thinly-veiled admissions of defeat. Here we go again:
«Fair enough. I tell you that you can't see my point and you tell me I can't see yours. The subject isn't worth pursing any further, although I would like to clear a few points on the progression of this discussion.I'm a bit amazed at what passes for an insult to you. When I say that your position is hardly credited by your manner of attacking mine I mean you've presented nothing that addresses the issues I bring up. That's what you've accused me of doing so I guess that we're equally insulting and uncredited.
The part I liked best was "More ambiguity. Ho hum." I stated the central tenet two sentences later. You called my point ambiguous (a buzzword, something we both enjoy using apparently) before it was even made. That's what I mean when I say your position is not credited by your method. You basically said "I don't know what you're going to say but it's ambiguous and wrong".If I may be condemned for saying 'core belief' where do you get in comparing my view to your view of Soviet Russia? Sure, children who are by nature immature and require ever-present guidance should not grow up in an environment where if they so much as speak dissent against the conservative totalitarian government they'll be killed or imprisoned. But that is hardly a comparison to children who only mature and self-determine when they witness conflicting views and have to choose their own to defend living in America or Canada.
Lastly, when I said that you aren't addressing the "core belief" I meant that you didn't try to disprove my reason for stating what I did. One example is that I believe that students should be in schools where they learn beside people who have different beliefs. That is why I brought up the Muslim students in my school. To say, "See, that proves my argument, governments shouldn't force schools to allow people of different religions admission" doesn't really say anything. If you're going to proudly announce your logical superiority, convince me of why it is wrong for a Catholic to attend school with a Muslim otherwise I will only see the government forcing such heterogenous school populations as a good thing. I'm not asking you to do it now, but it might help in future discussions.»
I will now again tear this to shreds.
«Fair enough. I tell you that you can't see my point and you tell me I can't see yours. The subject isn't worth pursing any further, although I would like to clear a few points on the progression of this discussion.»
Translation: He is out of ammunition, and now wants to call it a draw.
Response: Victory is mine!
«I'm a bit amazed at what passes for an insult to you.»
The idea that the government, not parents, ought to make the key decisions regarding raising children including at what age below 18 the children may make certain decisions is indeed insulting, both on a fundamental level and insulting to the intelligence of those reading it. Parents are for parenting, and governments are not. Stop trying to confuse the two.
«When I say that your position is hardly credited by your manner of attacking mine I mean you've presented nothing that addresses the issues I bring up. That's what you've accused me of doing so I guess that we're equally insulting and uncredited.»
Presented nothing? Laughable. You are merely denying that your ambiguities are both off-topic and incorrect. Next time you may want to try something besides red herrings and fallacies.
«The part I liked best was "More ambiguity. Ho hum." I stated the central tenet two sentences later. You called my point ambiguous (a buzzword, something we both enjoy using apparently) before it was even made. That's what I mean when I say your position is not credited by your method. You basically said "I don't know what you're going to say but it's ambiguous and wrong".»
I had already read the entire post beforehand, so your characterization is blatantly false. If you are going to complain about me calling your statements ambiguities then stop making ambiguous statements.
«If I may be condemned for saying 'core belief' where do you get in comparing my view to your view of Soviet Russia?»
Politically determined schools and curriculum are precisely what Soviet Russia strove to create. You stated you were boldly in favor of government involvement in schooling and in favor of the schools placing the decisions in the hands of the students without input from the parents. There is no way to read your ramblings concerning such concepts that does not smack of Soviet Russia.
«Sure, children who are by nature immature and require ever-present guidance should not grow up in an environment where if they so much as speak dissent against the conservative totalitarian government they'll be killed or imprisoned. But that is hardly a comparison to children who only mature and self-determine when they witness conflicting views and have to choose their own to defend living in America or Canada.»
That is for the parents, not for the government, to determine. Red herring again.
«Lastly, when I said that you aren't addressing the "core belief" I meant that you didn't try to disprove my reason for stating what I did.»
I didn't have to. Your so-called "core belief" was both off-topic and incorrect. Unless you can prove that it is on-topic and correct, you already did a great job in stating your reasons for stating it in disproving it yourself. To sum it up, you basically said that it is the government's duty to have public schools that are constantly conflicting with the will of parents and cutting parents out of their own children's education and future. This is belief is inherently wrong. And as far as the "under 18 making decisions" part, I tore that to shreds.
«One example is that I believe that students should be in schools where they learn beside people who have different beliefs. That is why I brought up the Muslim students in my school.»
Feel free to raise your children that way. Don't use the government to force it on others.
«To say, "See, that proves my argument, governments shouldn't force schools to allow people of different religions admission" doesn't really say anything. If you're going to proudly announce your logical superiority, convince me of why it is wrong for a Catholic to attend school with a Muslim otherwise I will only see the government forcing such heterogenous school populations as a good thing. I'm not asking you to do it now, but it might help in future discussions.»
There you go making misguided statements again. You are taking my words out of context. I stated that if a private school is one of a religious nature (i.e. a catholic school) then the parents' intent is for their children to be educated in a Catholic environment. Letting Muslims in does not fit that description.
Additionally, I never said anything about the government forcing homogenized school populations. What I stated is that as private institutions, it is necessary that they be able to choose who can and cannot attend based upon their own rules, be they academic standards or religious ones. It is not within the government's rights to prevent such rules, nor is it consistent with the wishes of the parents whose children will be attending the school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment