April 7, 201016 yr With no context, no. As a world history teacher I often had kids take opposing view points from what was typical in the community and argue that point. I would have them take the "bad guys" position in history and defend their point of view. When we talked about business and environment, I would profer arguements for business one day in class, vehemently, and offer arguments for environmentalists the next, vehemently. So without knowing the context, I have no problem. Provide me some context and I might. This doesn't appear to be students with opposing views. This appears to be a teacher trying to impose his/her view.
April 7, 201016 yr It is not indoctrination, because the statements are true. An item that can be added is that liberals avoid, ignore, deny the truth. Particularly if it is something that sheds light on their beliefs. The statements are opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. The depictions of and angel for liberals and the devil for conservatives tells you exactly what side of the aisle this teacher happens to reside.
April 7, 201016 yr I have had an epiphany, and I think YOU ARE ALL WRONG. The angel and devil are not representations of Liberal vs Conservative, but if you read the heading and the descriptions, you will see that the two paragraphs are talking about human nature. According to the pamphlet, liberals think humans are basically good and can make good decisions through the government. One has great confidence in the "enlightened citizen" and the other is "distrustful of the average citizen to direct the government". Visually the images are misplaced and because of our immediate reaction to being "demonized" we jump to conclusion. The simple fact is, I will bet this is a discussion in government, and those images are reflections of the Hobbesian and Lockeian notions of human nature. The teacher is saying that Liberals take the Lockeian view and Conservative take the Hobbesian view. Those pictures are simply there to jog the memory and connect to previous learning. Anybody wanna wager on this one? Not really of course, but I bet I am right. Context is everything but I bet the conservatives are having a ball and don't care about context.
April 7, 201016 yr ^:rolleyes: Really, that is what you got? Nice addition. Tell me what Hobbes and Locke say about human nature without going to WIKI. It really is obvious.
April 7, 201016 yr The pamphlet is not accurate. Conservatives do not believe that people have been tainted by original sin. Christians believe that people have been tainted by original sin. The pamphlet indoctrinates in that it attempts to associate and unite the two, and that it gives a false sense that to be conservative means to hold the Christian view. Conservatives are also not more relucatant to provide welfare programs because they do not think it will be used properly. Conservatives are more reluctant to provide welfare programs because they do not believe it is the function of government to provide welfare programs, and because they do not believe that the government will spend the money efficiently. Subtle, but very important, difference. The indoctrination is an attempt to cast conservatives in a light that looks down upon the poor, as opposed to looking down upon the government, which is more accurate. Similarly, the pamphlet is inaccurate in stating that conservatives are distrustful of the average citizens's ability to direct the government. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives are mistrustful of the average government's ability to lead the citizenry. I have not heard anyone stand up and say that this school teacher did not have an agenda. I assume that the fact that the papaer was not allowed to be taken home tipped you off. I see some of you defending the pamphlet and saying "nothing to see here," but were the shoe on the other foot, I have no doubt that you would have started this thread.
April 7, 201016 yr Really, that is what you got? Nice addition. Tell me what Hobbes and Locke say about human nature without going to WIKI. It really is obvious. Hobbes and Locke were not mentioned anywhere in the text... But it is totally "obvious" what the "teachers" intent was...
April 7, 201016 yr If the "teacher" would not allow the students to take the paper home even the dimmest bulb could understand the intent no matter what the "context" was... I used to run-off just enough copies to use in class and took them up to use in the next class. It saved on paper and the kids usually just threw them them away within a day or two.
April 7, 201016 yr True partisanship, absolutely... So which philosophy do you think is evil?? Do the students need to think one is evil and one is good?? 1) So, I still don't think I understand. If this had conformed to your version of the differences in philosophy, and the angel and devil reversed in their placement, you'd have been OK with the handout? 2) I don't personally think either philosophy is evil. It's the misapplication of any philosophy that can be evil. Philosophies in and of themselves are not evil. 3) It should be obvous that I don't think that students need to think either is evil or good based on my opinion stated in point 2 here.
April 7, 201016 yr Tell me what Hobbes and Locke say about human nature without going to WIKI.What about Calvinism?
April 7, 201016 yr I used to run-off just enough copies to use in class and took them up to use in the next class. It saved on paper and the kids usually just threw them them away within a day or two. I do the same thing with assignments like this. Make 30 copies and use them all day. Typically I will leave them out after the last class and anyone who wants a copy can pick one up. So as many others have said, we don't really know the context to make much of a comment.
April 7, 201016 yr I have had an epiphany, and I think YOU ARE ALL WRONG. The angel and devil are not representations of Liberal vs Conservative, but if you read the heading and the descriptions, you will see that the two paragraphs are talking about human nature. According to the pamphlet, liberals think humans are basically good and can make good decisions through the government. One has great confidence in the "enlightened citizen" and the other is "distrustful of the average citizen to direct the government". Visually the images are misplaced... I thought that was kind of obvious from the beginning. The pictures are "supposed" to represent the two different views of basic human nature. But such strong images, without a proper contextual linkage, are just confusing -- especially for a bunch of hardcore P&R junkies.
April 7, 201016 yr The pamphlet is not accurate. Conservatives do not believe that people have been tainted by original sin. Christians believe that people have been tainted by original sin. The pamphlet indoctrinates in that it attempts to associate and unite the two, and that it gives a false sense that to be conservative means to hold the Christian view. Conservatives are also not more relucatant to provide welfare programs because they do not think it will be used properly. Conservatives are more reluctant to provide welfare programs because they do not believe it is the function of government to provide welfare programs, and because they do not believe that the government will spend the money efficiently. Subtle, but very important, difference. The indoctrination is an attempt to cast conservatives in a light that looks down upon the poor, as opposed to looking down upon the government, which is more accurate. Similarly, the pamphlet is inaccurate in stating that conservatives are distrustful of the average citizens's ability to direct the government. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives are mistrustful of the average government's ability to lead the citizenry. I have not heard anyone stand up and say that this school teacher did not have an agenda. I assume that the fact that the papaer was not allowed to be taken home tipped you off. I see some of you defending the pamphlet and saying "nothing to see here," but were the shoe on the other foot, I have no doubt that you would have started this thread. :thumb: It is inaccurate at the core. Conservatives believe that individuals are smarter and can do a better job of choosing how to spend their resources than government can. Liberals are the ones who believe that people are not smart enough on their own and need government to make decisions for them on how to spend their resources.
April 7, 201016 yr 1) So, I still don't think I understand. If this had conformed to your version of the differences in philosophy, and the angel and devil reversed in their placement, you'd have been OK with the handout? 2) I don't personally think either philosophy is evil. It's the misapplication of any philosophy that can be evil. Philosophies in and of themselves are not evil. 3) It should be obvous that I don't think that students need to think either is evil or good based on my opinion stated in point 2 here. :eek: :eek: I agree with RM....:isurrender:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.