>> At 03:20 PM 3/30/2004 -0500, you Victor: >> No, "Haim", it is you who confuses ontology with semantics. > > For years I used to be intimidated by people who use "ontology" in > their arguments. Finally, I learned how to spell the word and now I > intimidate others. Your problem is that you cannot take "yes" for an > answer. You were apoplectic over the proposed experiment with > single-sex education, and I was agreeing with you (about the > experiment). Now, my reasons may be a little different from yours but > > should you not take your allies where you can find them? > >> The statement I made arises logically and directly from yours, not >> the other way around. It is not a homological argument, but one that >> extends your logic. What you fail to appreciate is that your >> "argument" reinforces my arguments made far earlier than yours--that >> the causes you support along with supporters of such causes tolerate >> no dissent. That is, they will level arguments to discredit > opposition >> when their own arguments are far more riddled with problems of the >> sort that they describe. It's the preemptive strike theory--if you >> accuse your opponent of having your own faults, he cannot use the > same >> argument against you. > > You must be confusing me with some other pudgy, middle-aged white > man. The only cause I champion is anti-fascism and I am profoundly > indifferent to whether the fascism is of the right wing or the left > wing variety (hence my few friends). The differences between them are > > entirely propagandistic while their similarities are insensate > stupidity and the exuberant use of coercion. It is about coercion. > Race-segregation was coercive. Sex-segregation would be voluntary. > See? > >> Well, not the case this time, "Haim". You fail to answer why we > should >> treat the "experiments" that even the proponents claim to be >> experiments differently than you and Timotha want to treat what you >> allege to be experiments (even though they are the products designed >> based on RESULTS of experiments, i.e., actually have a base in >> science). > > The word you are looking for is: C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N. Right wing > fascists will coerce you into doing what they want for their benefit; > > left wing fascists will coerce you into doing what they want for your > benefit. Both should go straight to hell. > >> And I did not say that segregating the sexes is similar to or >> dissimilar from racial segregation. My statement, unlike yours, does >> not rely on their homology, analogy or ontology. It only compared how > >> "experiments" are treated and if we are to be so generous with one >> kind of experiments, why not try the other? You have no answer, so > you >> continue to blow smoke. > > You really should try to make some useful distinctions. For > instance, my experimenting with my child is my business; your > experimenting with my child ought to be against the law. (I am > talking > about educational experiments, of course.) > >> But even on your own terms you are completely wrong. > > We are not talking about the same thing, at all. When you and your > > friends talk about experiments, you are looking for science to justify > > your power over other people's lives. The sum and substance of my > "experiment" is to get you and your friends out of our lives. For > sure > I am completely right about that. > > Haim > ---- > > Arafat delendus est! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jerry Uhl firstname.lastname@example.org Professor of Mathematics, Professor of Education University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
My theory of teaching is that if I do my job right, then my students will be just fine in life (won't need me as much anymore) ... learning on their own, acquiring new skills, and prepared for what comes their way. I could fill minds with facts all day long, but if a mind cannot think, then what use does it have?