[geeks] education systems around the world

[hike]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net>wrote:

> hike wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Phil Stracchino <alaric at metrocast.net
> >wrote:
> >> hike wrote:
> >>> you have noted that people are not perfect.  that is the proof that you
> >> are
> >>> proposing a system of anarchy.
> >>
> >> BZZZZZZZZZZT!  TOTAL non-sequitur.
> >
> > Not quite Phil.
> >
> > Not even a partial non-sequitur.
> >
> > Jonathan is making an assumption about "people" which he negates in his
> > email.  Taken in the content of my questions, the imperfections "in
> people"
> > is proof that his philosophy is impractical, if not impossible, to
> > implement.  The logical conclusion is anarchy.  (Many there are other
> > conclusions but, for the life of me, I don't see any other logical
> > conclusions.)
>
> Setting aside for the moment the question of whether your reasoning is
> necessarily correct (which I don't believe it is), the proposition
> "People are imperfect, therefore you are espousing anarchy" is about as
> valid as "Cars break down, therefore you're espousing oil drilling in
> Alaska."  It *is* a complete non-sequitur.  The precedent does not
> follow from the antecedent in any way, without assuming an entire
> structure of assertions and maxims that have neither been stipulated nor
> agreed upon.
>
> Now if you want to rephrase your statement along the lines of "I believe
> that because people are not perfect, the kind of system you are
> proposing would degenerate into anarchy" (which is more or less what I
> *think* you meant), then I'd have no problem with that.  But your
> proposition as originally stated just makes no sense.
>
>
> --
>   Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
>  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
>         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
>                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks
>


Phil,

My point is reasonable and appropriate.  You must read my statement in the
context of the particular and smaller discussion that Jonathan and I am
having.  In the context, my statement does not have the failing that you
suggest.

Simply, Jonathan's  philosophy cannot be accomplished by imperfect people.
His own admission of imperfection negates his proposed philosophy.  If this
is true, he needs to spend more time investigating an appropriate
philosophy.  If everyone follows Jonathan's proposed philosophy, it will
result in anarchy.

BTW, we're not on slashdot--no car illustrations needed.  A more appropriate
car story is the person trying to enter the traffic lane from a parking
lot.  Some well-intended driver stops to let the person enter the traffic
lane.  Isn't this polite and nice?  Shouldn't we be polite and nice to each
other?  (According to Jonathan's proposed philosophy, we should.) BUT, the
light is green and all the cars behind the well-intended driver have to wait
and some (but not all) miss the green light and have to stop at the red
light.  What has become of the well-intend action?  It has a negative affect
on some (if not all) of the drivers behind the well-intended driver.  What
is everyone only considered what is "in front of her face"?