email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
Under the headline of, "Why condemn Israel?" (Letters, The West, 27 May 10), Robert Raymen successfully uses, Reductio ad Hitlerum. Well done, Raymen!
Reductio ad Hitlerum: compare it to Hitler, to prove that a policy is right, or wrong...
"If the British had carried out an operation during World War II to assassinate Adolf Hitler, do you think the world would have condemned Britain for using forged passports...?" Let's assume that everyone would support assassination of Hitler... so that provides support for assassination of any leader of a group which opposes any government? Good grief!
World War II was a "world" war -- lots of countries were involved. Which country's passports should we forge? I suspect that the neutral Swiss would have objected if their passports were forged. Why? Because it effectively drags them into a war which they are attempting to avoid.
Similarly, Australia is not at war with Hamas. Neither is Britain. Neither Australia nor Britain want to be dragged, unwillingly, into a war between Israel and Hamas. In fact, I doubt if even Israel is involved in a formal, declared war with Hamas. Neither Australia nor Britain wants to be dragged into a murderous gang-style battle between two groups of terrorists fighting an undeclared war.
Australia is quite right in -- at the very least -- speaking sternly to Israel about its contemptuous action in forging Australian passports.
Even more faulty logic
"Two standards" is another letter on the same topic, from Stanley Keyser. Keyser bases his own illogic on false comparisons:"The world smiled when Saddam Hussein was killed. Australians applauded when [the Bali bombers] were put to death. Why, then, is there so much criticism of Israel when it does exactly the same thing?" To Keyser, these three situations are exactly the same. Let's look at the differences...
Saddam Hussein was captured, went to prison, went on trial, found guilty on the basis of evidence of capital crimes. He was executed on the order of a judicial court. The Bali bombers were captured, went to prison, went on trial, found guilty on the basis of evidence of capital crimes. They were executed on the order of a judicial court. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was... well... murdered.
Where was the trial? What was the evidence? Where was the judge? the jury?
Yes, it is possible that a court could have found that al-Mabhouh was guilty of capital crimes. There is no indication that a court trial was ever considered. Is the head of Mossad a legally appointed judge, jury and executioner? Is Mossad a legally appointed court? Was there evidence? a court of appeal? Not as far as we can tell.
Hussein and the Bali bombers went through due process. Al-Mabhouh was assassinated by a secretive Israeli terrorist organisation.
To use my own brand of dubious and emotion-charged logic: who will Mossad kill next? and will they even tell us why?
Under the spreading fallacy...
Lack of logic may well be infectious!There, right next to Keyser's false comparison, Graham Waideman applies the same type of illogical comparison. This time, to education:
"Students who act violently ... are 'damaged'." Okay, no argument so far.
Waideman worked for two years in a program to support these damaged students. "Yet in my two years at the program I never witnessed nor was I made aware of any of these students using physical violence towards any staff member or volunteer helper." Well, derrr!
Pull students out of a classroom. Appoint specialist staff whose job is to cope with the damaged nature of these students. Focus every effort -- possibly one-on-one -- to managing the destructive behaviour of the students. (Were they also learning? Who cares.)
Now go back to the classroom:
Thirty students, three of whom are disruptive. One teacher, attempting to teach thirty students. Every interruption by a disruptive student is a backward step for the 27 students willing to learn.
All three "damaged" students are potentially violent. Does the teacher have time to provide one-on-one coping strategies for those three? No. Does the teacher keep one eye on the three? Probably -- and the other 27 suffer as a result. What happens when one of the three damaged students "breaks"? Violence? Possibly. Disruption to the education of the other 27? Definitely.
Waideman's comparison is ridiculous; the standard classroom is in no way the same as a specialist program. The conclusion is also wrong.
Waideman suggests that classes are under-funded, fine. That more money should be put into classrooms -- to cope with "damaged" students? Rubbish!
A school is for education. If a student is unwilling to learn or incapable of learning -- they should not be allowed to destroy education for other students.
Yes, provide resources to support the education of the "damaged" students. But support them outside the standard classroom. If there are 27 students -- damaged or otherwise -- who can cope with school, then let them learn. And put the violent trouble-makers in a padded program of their own.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
2 comments:
G'day I'm Graham Waideman.
I suspect that we don't differ anywhere nearly as much as your comments would suggest.
I was not attempting to compare a standard classroom to a specialist program. Such a comparison, as you so eloquently assert, is ridiculous.
What I thought, obviously wrongly, that I had made clear in my letter was that many things had gone horribly wrong before the violent attack. If the "damage" to this child had been identified and dealt with, perhaps by way of but certainly not exclusively, as you say "padded programs", before the act, then is not everyone including the 27 "willing" learners better off?
Neither was I suggesting that the extra resources I feel classrooms require are solely to cope with damaged students. Expecting one teacher to facilitate the optimum learning outcomes for 30 students is to my mind illogical. Unless of course they are all the ideal students with great self esteem, supportive families and at least average intelligence. Oh, I nearly forgot, this classroom would also have the perfect teacher with the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon. How many such classes exist in the "real world" I wonder.
The point of my letter to the paper which I take responsibility for being somewhat obscure is this; our society is ailing and unless we stop blaming the victims, teachers will continue to be assaulted and more children will be damaged.
Cheers
Graham
Hello Graham,
Thanks for your comments. Yes, we agree -- up to a point.
It would be nice if education had the resources to educate everyone to the optimum level for that individual. But a school should be an educational institution -- not a care centre for violent students. If a violent student interferes with educational opportunities for other students then that violent student must... well... be prevented from interfering with the education of the other students.
No, I do not have a simple (ie universally acceptable) answer. But allowing a small number of violent students to destroy an education system is not an acceptable answer.
Yes, the violent students may have been victims in other circumstances. That does not give them the right to turn other people -- teachers, in this case -- into victims. As the cliche has it: Two wrongs do not make a right.
Yes, we should help the victims of childhood violence as much as we can. But do not sacrifice innocent bystanders -- teachers and other students -- in order to "help" the already victimised and now violent children.
Post a Comment