The ArchBishop's Hypocrisy

Curriculum is unchanging.

In the UK, the curriculum is constantly changing....

That however doesn't answer the question.

Why do you consider that are the religious beliefs of one respected (the veil), yet another's (the curriculum restrictions) not respected?

Both are making demands according to their religious beliefs (ie cultural) that could damage the prospects of the children.

As modes of teaching about other cultures, shouldn't both be respected?

Why should we discriminate?

Not a blind spot at all, I apply the same philosophical criteria as I would for any question. This is in part just mental exercise....

Check mate? Roflmao!
 
AnyOldIron said:
Curriculum is unchanging.

In the UK, the curriculum is constantly changing....

That however doesn't answer the question.

Why do you consider that are the religious beliefs of one respected (the veil), yet another's (the curriculum restrictions) not respected?

Both are making demands according to their religious beliefs (ie cultural) that could damage the prospects of the children.

As modes of teaching about other cultures, shouldn't both be respected?

Why should we discriminate?

Not a blind spot at all, I apply the same philosophical criteria as I would for any question. This is in part just mental exercise....

Check mate? Roflmao!
Click to expand...
Curriculum is decided upon at a different level, her culture is not.

One can easily see the difference unless one is simply attempting to look for ridiculous reasons to deny something.

This is the extension of the "Bestial Marriages" type of argument you presented earlier and is the same logical fallacy. "If we let her wear a veil then we have to let her change the curriculum!" it is total rubbish and you know it! It is definitely the same fallacy as before, couched a little differently, but still beneath you.
 
I find it hilarious that the one that normally would argue for multicultural causes, the liberal, is the one attempting to defend this... and all because of the religious blind-spot.

Its a philosophical question that needs to be answered. I won't work from liberal premise or from a religious blindspot.

I just argue the point. It's mental masterbation....
 
AnyOldIron said:
I find it hilarious that the one that normally would argue for multicultural causes, the liberal, is the one attempting to defend this... and all because of the religious blind-spot.

Its a philosophical question that needs to be answered. I won't work from liberal premise or from a religious blindspot.

I just argue the point. It's mental masterbation....
Click to expand...
Nah, the whole premise here for your argument is that if she does it for religion it must be bad. If it were for a different aspect of her culture you'd be all for it and up in arms about her dismissal.

Honestly, I am neither. I can see both aspects especially since she wasn't wearing the veil during the interview...
 
Curriculum is decided upon at a different level, her culture is not.

What level is her culture decided on then? lol This isn't an answer.

Her culture is set by her own perspective. Culture and religion are a set of ideas only, nothing more.

As for the rest of your post, I've already explained that this is called reductio per absurdum and is argued by presenting comparison situations to put the argument into perspective.

You still haven't answered my point. What makes one person's cultural decision ok and another's not?

Both (veil and curriculum) are derived from religious beliefs (culture) both from personal perspectives.

Why is one allowed to maintain her personal beliefs (veil) and another not (curriculum), when both adversely affect the children's education?

This is the last post for today. Continue tomorrow.....
 
AnyOldIron said:
Curriculum is decided upon at a different level, her culture is not.

What level is her culture decided on then? lol This isn't an answer.

Her culture is set by her own perspective. Culture and religion are a set of ideas only, nothing more.

As for the rest of your post, I've already explained that this is called reductio per absurdum and is argued by presenting comparison situations to put the argument into perspective.

You still haven't answered my point. What makes one person's cultural decision ok and another's not?

Both (veil and curriculum) are derived from religious beliefs (culture) both from personal perspectives.

Why is one allowed to maintain her personal beliefs (veil) and another not (curriculum), when both adversely affect the children's education?

This is the last post for today. Continue tomorrow.....
Click to expand...
Rubbish. Teachers, or TAs, are the variable here, not the curriculum. This is the same, slippery slope argument as before.

I did answer your point. You just refuse to see it because of the blinders. "If it is due to religion it must be bad!"

The curriculum is never fully decided by a teacher, to attempt to argue such is total fallacy. However her culture is simply part of what makes her what she is.

Do you have more easily dismissed slippery-slope drivel to spew at me in defense of "religion bad"?
 
Nah, the whole premise here for your argument is that if she does it for religion it must be bad. If it were for a different aspect of her culture you'd be all for it and up in arms about her dismissal.

Not at all. I'm not easy to perform pop-psychology on.

The religious part might have sparked my interest, but it is the conundrum that keeps my interest. If her (non religious part of) culture decreed that she should teach with a giant phallus covering her face I'd still be arguing the point. As I said, it's just mental masterbation.

I'll argue on any subject you like; what came first, chicken or egg? Is black white? etc etc
 
The curriculum is never fully decided by a teacher, to attempt to argue such is total fallacy. However her culture is simply part of what makes her what she is.

No, but whether she / he teaches the curriculum is up to them. They can ignore the curriculum.

And again you are avoiding the point...

"What makes one person's cultural decision ok and another's not?

Both (veil and curriculum) are derived from religious beliefs (culture) both from personal perspectives.

Why is one allowed to maintain her personal beliefs (veil) and another not (curriculum), when both adversely affect the children's education?"

Both the decision to not teach part of the curriculum and to wear a veil are personal decisions made by individuals. Nothing is set anywhere else except in the minds of the two teachers.

So why the inconsistency?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Nah, the whole premise here for your argument is that if she does it for religion it must be bad. If it were for a different aspect of her culture you'd be all for it and up in arms about her dismissal.

Not at all. I'm not easy to perform pop-psychology on.

The religious part might have sparked my interest, but it is the conundrum that keeps my interest. If her (non religious part of) culture decreed that she should teach with a giant phallus covering her face I'd still be arguing the point. As I said, it's just mental masterbation.

I'll argue on any subject you like; what came first, chicken or egg? Is black white? etc etc
Click to expand...

You obviously just don't understand. The what came first question is internally contradictory. Everyone knows it wasn't a chicken or an egg that came first; it was GAWD Almighty that came firtst!!!!!!
 
AnyOldIron said:
The curriculum is never fully decided by a teacher, to attempt to argue such is total fallacy. However her culture is simply part of what makes her what she is.

No, but whether she / he teaches the curriculum is up to them. They can ignore the curriculum.

And again you are avoiding the point...

"What makes one person's cultural decision ok and another's not?

Both (veil and curriculum) are derived from religious beliefs (culture) both from personal perspectives.

Why is one allowed to maintain her personal beliefs (veil) and another not (curriculum), when both adversely affect the children's education?"

Both the decision to not teach part of the curriculum and to wear a veil are personal decisions made by individuals. Nothing is set anywhere else except in the minds of the two teachers.

So why the inconsistency?
Click to expand...
Because one is not a variable and is consistent with whether they are doing the job at all, the other is a variable in every case...

Clearly one can see the difference, and I have answered this three times now and pointed out the "slippy slope" fallacy.
 
Damocles said:
Because one is not a variable and is consistent with whether they are doing the job at all, the other is a variable in every case...

Clearly one can see the difference, and I have answered this three times now and pointed out the "slippy slope" fallacy.
Click to expand...

This is a really confused post and shows a complete lack of understanding of what consistitues Curriculum and who chooses it. You really should read The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America by Jonathan Kozol. The argument is quite involved and not nearly as cut and dried as you are making it appear here. But the choice of curriculum, in public schools, may or may not be up to the teacher, or even the district, and certainly may or may not be up to the teacher in private schools where teachers may or may not have, depending on the corporate or religious group's desire for control, more or less contol than they would in the public schools. In short, like many things it is not an either/or situation. Some teachers have much more control over their curriculum than others.
 
Prakosh said:
This is a really confused post and shows a complete lack of understanding of what consistitues Curriculum and who chooses it. You really should read The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America by Jonathan Kozol. The argument is quite involved and not nearly as cut and dried as you are making it appear here. But the choice of curriculum, in public schools, may or may not be up to the teacher, or even the district, and certainly may or may not be up to the teacher in private schools where teachers may or may not have, depending on the corporate or religious group's desire for control, more or less contol than they would in the public schools. In short, like many things it is not an either/or situation. Some teachers have much more control over their curriculum than others.
Click to expand...
Correct, we however are speaking of the curriculum in a specific public school and not the private schools at all. In this case this is a fundamental disconnect with the original subject matter, an attempt to obfuscate the argument by attempting to add variables that in this case do not exist.

If the teacher has 100% control of the curriculum you would have no recourse to sack her for a lack of using the approved curriculum. In this case she does not have that choice and the introduction of such a non-existent variable is a logical fallacy and a direct attempt to obfuscate. It is a bold faced attempt to add to the slippery slope fallacy from before.
 
Everyone knows it wasn't a chicken or an egg that came first; it was GAWD Almighty that came firtst!!!!!!

LOL! The almighty egg!
 
Last edited:
Because one is not a variable and is consistent with whether they are doing the job at all, the other is a variable in every case...

Let's look at the variables...

Only the method in which they damage the children's education varies, one through restricting the method of communication, one through restricting the content of that communication.

And the comparables....

In both, you have individuals who are, because of their religious sensibilities, inflicting damage on the children's education. Both are not fulfilling their jobs effectively.

Essentially, aside from the methods used, the two are doing the same thing, both are working from the premise that their own personal ideology (ie religion) supercedes the rights of the children getting a good education.

So why is one ok and one not?
 
If the teacher has 100% control of the curriculum you would have no recourse to sack her for a lack of using the approved curriculum. In this case she does not have that choice

You are missing the point, Damo.

Even if she has no control over what the curriculum states, she has control over what part of the curriculum she decides to teach.

If she decides not to teach part of the curriculum because it conflicts with her religious belief, she isn't doing her job, just as a person who, because of religious belief, restricts her ability to communicate with her class.......
 
AnyOldIron said:
Because one is not a variable and is consistent with whether they are doing the job at all, the other is a variable in every case...

Let's look at the variables...

Only the method in which they damage the children's education varies, one through restricting the method of communication, one through restricting the content of that communication.

And the comparables....

In both, you have individuals who are, because of their religious sensibilities, inflicting damage on the children's education. Both are not fulfilling their jobs effectively.

Essentially, aside from the methods used, the two are doing the same thing, both are working from the premise that their own personal ideology (ie religion) supercedes the rights of the children getting a good education.

So why is one ok and one not?
Click to expand...
Not true. Many people learn to read other factors of body language when a face is not readily available. This is just a new way to teach children better communication skills. Over time the children would get used to the teacher and her methods.
 
AnyOldIron said:
If the teacher has 100% control of the curriculum you would have no recourse to sack her for a lack of using the approved curriculum. In this case she does not have that choice

You are missing the point, Damo.

Even if she has no control over what the curriculum states, she has control over what part of the curriculum she decides to teach.

If she decides not to teach part of the curriculum because it conflicts with her religious belief, she isn't doing her job, just as a person who, because of religious belief, restricts her ability to communicate with her class.......
Click to expand...
However, if the curriculum is proscribed (and it is) then what she chooses can be used to sack her. One is not an actual variable. Much like I can choose not to pay taxes, but when it comes right down to it I will end up in jail. She will be sacked for simply not doing her job. The secondary one is a variable over which she did have control, her clothing. One allows the children to learn the same material as all other children at the same time as learning a cultural aspect they otherwise would not be party to. It is beneficial to the children to learn to read other than facial body language.
 
Not true. Many people learn to read other factors of body language when a face is not readily available.

Most educational experts state that it is vital, and this is the UK, facial expression is used in everyday contact. The children don't live in an environment where they will need to learn other factors.

In essence, it is like attempting to teach children without using your voice.
 
The secondary one is a variable over which she did have control, her clothing.

Of course she has control, religious sentiments aren't a medical necessity.

Religion is only a set of ideas.

If she wished to cover her face and thus restrict communication, she should have informed them at her interview so they could take that into account when assessing her suitability for the post...
 
AnyOldIron said:
Not true. Many people learn to read other factors of body language when a face is not readily available.

Most educational experts state that it is vital, and this is the UK, facial expression is used in everyday contact. The children don't live in an environment where they will need to learn other factors.

In essence, it is like attempting to teach children without using your voice.
Click to expand...
Which can be done as well. If the teacher were deaf would she be sacked?

Multiculturalism is exactly that. I believe it is beneficial and would be beneficial to the children to learn other factors of body language. Saying "They don't need them" is not the same as saying, "It will never benefit them to know this".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top