Freedomain Radio

Xelent - I was referring to Stef's advice discouraging the boy from talking to teachers about these topics and his judgement of the situation as dangerous for the boy, when I think it was just a misunderstanding. I didn't see any intentional punishment on the part of the teacher or assistant principal, but rather I saw Stef's prejudice of teachers in general. I expressed that there is a greater benefit than cost, both by saying the letter was misinterpreted by Stef, and that the benefits of debate with teachers can be fruitful, as they have been in many of my experiences.

Magnus - I'm talking about the kind of willing productive debate of ideas you allude to in the sciences, not just bickering arguments. Since your profession and teaching are both under the tyranny of the state, don't you think teachers could be in the same financial boat, but willing, as you are, to listen to philosophical principles?

gyrobot - Yes, I agree that there are people who are closed and open minded to varying degrees in all professions. I don't think we should be drawing absolute lines of who you should and shouldn't debate. Ideally we should all talk to innocent children who know nothing cause they're easy to convince, but are adults completely hopeless? If adults are not hopeless, I don't think we should start singling out particular professions and saying well, musicians might change but professors of economics at a state university - no way. There are always optimal people to talk with, like young children who don't know any better, but if that's the case, why isn't Stef and the rest of us starting a lot of anarchist community centers around the world to begin kids in preschool like churches do, since churches have proven the most successfull at indoctrinization?

 

Stefan Molyneux:

You think that I told him to "shut up"?

No, of course not word for word, but you did discourage him from writing his concerns to "any public school teachers":

Stefan Molyneux:

I certainly don't think that you will change the minds of any public school teachers, no matter how well-written your essay is, so if I were you I would not feel obligated...

To me, that's saying don't bother talking with teachers, and you even later allude to college professors in this thread, essentially saying "shut up" nicely with regard to all of his teachers on the topics which most concern him.

 

eflon:

I was referring to Stef's advice discouraging the boy from talking to teachers about these topics and his judgement of the situation as dangerous for the boy, when I think it was just a misunderstanding. I didn't see any intentional punishment on the part of the teacher or assistant principal, but rather I saw Stef's prejudice of teachers in general. I expressed that there is a greater benefit than cost, both by saying the letter was misinterpreted by Stef, and that the benefits of debate with teachers can be fruitful, as they have been in many of my experiences.

There is no evidence of this I'm afraid.. So if you want to avoid the accusation of 'baseless assertion', then you will need to dig deeper.. My previous posts explained the reasoning more than adequately..

xelent:

There is no evidence of this I'm afraid..

Stef said "sorry that you got exposed to the brutality of your "teachers" in such a terrible manner," but there is no direct evidence in the letter that the teacher was purposely causing trouble for the student. The teacher wasn't accusing him of using drugs. Rather, I said that it seems likely that the teacher or the assistant principal suspected drugs because the boy was talking about drugs, and overlooked his rational argument of the essay topic for a problem much more common in schools, drugs. I think it was perfectly reasonable for the teacher or assistant principal, hearing it second hand, to take action to make sure that the boy wasn't talkingand writing about drugs because he was doing them. The only grossly wrong action was taken by the nurse, who was more accusatory, but probably because she had been tipped by the assistant principal. There was no evidence that the teacher was directly opposed to the topic. In fact, if he was honestly making sure that the topic was okay with the assistant principal, there is evidence that he would have accepted the essay topic. It could have simply been a misunderstanding on the part of the assistant principal, hearing it second hand and noticing how the kid was talking about drugs. I believe that with the help of the parents, the issue could be corrected easily, seeing as how they and his brother are supportive of his topic.

There is plenty of evidence in support of Stef's bias against teachers in general, including his recent post saying "I went to probably a dozen schools on two continents, and met hundreds of teachers and professors, and I never came across one who was genuinely curious, empirical, rational, and encouraged the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake," which is probably a gross overstatement, but nonetheless points towards his personal bias, which may not be the same case for this student.  

And there is still further evidence, like my personal example, supporting the benefits of debate with teachers in general. I don't understand what you mean by "baseless assertion" because I have provided personal examples, quotes from the letter, and my interpretation of what the letter says and where I think Stef misinterpreted things, and I have also given ideas to the advice I would have given instead.

eflon:

xelent:

There is no evidence of this I'm afraid..

Stef said "sorry that you got exposed to the brutality of your "teachers" in such a terrible manner," but there is no direct evidence in the letter that the teacher was purposely causing trouble for the student. The teacher wasn't accusing him of using drugs. Rather, I said that it seems likely that the teacher or the assistant principal suspected drugs because the boy was talking about drugs, and overlooked his rational argument of the essay topic for a problem much more common in schools, drugs. I think it was perfectly reasonable for the teacher or assistant principal, hearing it second hand, to take action to make sure that the boy wasn't talkingand writing about drugs because he was doing them. The only grossly wrong action was taken by the nurse, who was more accusatory, but probably because she had been tipped by the assistant principal. There was no evidence that the teacher was directly opposed to the topic. In fact, if he was honestly making sure that the topic was okay with the assistant principal, there is evidence that he would have accepted the essay topic. It could have simply been a misunderstanding on the part of the assistant principal, hearing it second hand and noticing how the kid was talking about drugs. I believe that with the help of the parents, the issue could be corrected easily, seeing as how they and his brother are supportive of his topic.

There is plenty of evidence in support of Stef's bias against teachers in general, including his recent post saying "I went to probably a dozen schools on two continents, and met hundreds of teachers and professors, and I never came across one who was genuinely curious, empirical, rational, and encouraged the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake," which is probably a gross overstatement, but nonetheless points towards his personal bias, which may not be the same case for this student.  

And there is still further evidence, like my personal example, supporting the benefits of debate with teachers in general. So I don't understand what you mean by "baseles assertion"...

This is gross supposition on your part, you have still not provided any evidence at all.. As your position is unwavering I cannot persue this conversation much further.. Good luck to you..

Could you give me one quote from the letter that supports Stef's assertion of teacher brutality? Stef's response seems more appropriate for if the student was expelled for bringing up the topic. I think it is much more reasonable to suspect drug use when a 6th grader is talking about them than teacher brutality in a "terrible manner."

eflon:

Stefan Molyneux:

You think that I told him to "shut up"?

No, of course not word for word, but you did discourage him from writing his concerns to "any public school teachers":

Stefan Molyneux:

I certainly don't think that you will change the minds of any public school teachers, no matter how well-written your essay is, so if I were you I would not feel obligated...

To me, that's saying don't bother talking with teachers, and you even later allude to college professors in this thread, essentially saying "shut up" nicely with regard to all of his teachers on the topics which most concern him.

Well, if you're going to deal with your subjective interpretations rather than what I actually wrote, I won't interrupt...

eflon:

Could you give me one quote from the letter that supports Stef's assertion of teacher brutality?

There are four school employees mentioned in the letter.  The first is the actual teacher, who, when the student asked if he could write an essay on legalization, said that he'd have to clear with with the Gestapo ... uh, the administration.  

Second, the Assistant Principal, representative of said administration, is informed. We do not know what he did, but considering what happens next, we can guess.

Next, we find a "counselor" coming to class to extract the offender ... uh, student.  When the student asks a simple question seeking an explanation, he is given no answer.  (Police are trained, by the way, to use the same technique with detainees.  Prompt them to ask questions, refuse to answer them while giving instructions.  It is, literally, a textbook method of subduing a detainee's desire to resist, by asserting dominance and authority through information control.) 

Finally, we get to the nurse, who is main villain, although the person in a school with the least clout and discretion.  But this underling in the school administration hierarchy ends up being the primary abuser here.  One of the perks of rank is not getting involved in the administration of violence.  She, being the lowest ranked official, then makes accusations with no evidence, uses a generally demeaning way of communicating, and lies about having talked to other students, as a way to extract an admission of guilt.  (Interrogators are trained, by the way, to use the same technique with subjects.  Lying about what other subjects have said is, literally, a textbook method of manipulating people into admitting to guilty behavior.) 

These behaviors are all abusive.  They also work in conjunction -- the classroom teacher is merely the front-line informer who sets the whole chain in motion. 

 

eflon:

I'm talking about the kind of willing productive debate of ideas you allude to in the sciences, not just bickering arguments. Since your profession and teaching are both under the tyranny of the state, don't you think teachers could be in the same financial boat, but willing, as you are, to listen to philosophical principles?

No.  Teachers are hired, paid and promoted according to their success at harming children.  I have a different set of economic pressures.

Yes, there is no indication that the original teacher fought this injustice, or spoke to the young man about the bad way he had been treated, or apologized for bringing the matter to the vice principal...

And there was also no indication that the teacher had hostile intentions toward the student, even knew of the poor treatment by the nurse, or even opposed the topic himself at all. You assumed all of this.

eflon:

And there was also no indication that the teacher had hostile intentions toward the student, even knew of the poor treatment by the nurse, or even opposed the topic himself at all. You assumed all of this.

 

 From the young persons email :"Ive been having a lot of problems at school not just because of my view on drugs, but for a number of things that I believe."

Even the adults who were not actually engaged in the abuse, did nothing to protect the child from the abusive adults.

Just from this, I wouldn't, in any good conscience, recommend that the young person continue, or escalate, any action that brings unwanted results.

I'm curious as to why this seems so very important to you?

You have certainly had a lot to say on this.

eflon:

And there was also no indication that the teacher had hostile intentions toward the student, even knew of the poor treatment by the nurse, or even opposed the topic himself at all. You assumed all of this.

Participating in an organization in which you are called upon to subordinate children, and condition them to reflexively submit to authority, is hostile.

As is informing upon those children for the purpose of exposing them to a degrading process of inspection and prying. 

As is telling them that it's all for their own good.

haha Im a girl :)

hahaha again, this is her. im a girl ;) thank you so much, and you will hear more from me in the future,belive me. :)

Welcome! My apologies for the assumption...