Now TB, you are a clever little vegemite - all you have to do is quote (in full) the post you are answering from another thread, and then answer it HERE!
Simple eh?

TB wrote:As an adult and parent, and well versed in moral judgements, I now have a different outlook.
TB wrote: My school comparisons are 1st world examples only, including my personal experiences.
TB wrote: These are 1st world examples, how about visiting a school during those times in some 3rd world countries, like Ethiopia?
TB wrote: "Is someone going to tell me that a comparison between 1st and 3rd world children is not valid?"
TB wrote: I do think that although the brutality at St James did have some differences with other schools in the UK, my basic point remains that many first world schools gave punishment in ways now considered immoral.
TB wrote: Deceit, anxiety and stress might be questionable ways to educate adults and children, but that is not the same as asking if they exist in educational systems. If you are not aware of these happening in other schools and institutions does this mean they do not exist? What if they do exist, but you have never considered it?
TB wrote:let me say that 'beating for not meditating' and 'stop talking' are of course different. They do however apply the same principles of conforming minds to certain imposed standards.
TB wrote:Not having personally attended St James, I can only infer what it was like by the stories on this forum.
TB wrote:I did not intend to compare 3rd world schools to St James, if I did so, I apologise, I was over enthusiatic.
TB wrote: I take it from this comment that you have visited 3rd world countries and have seen nothing to compare to St James. You mentioned earlier that they were not comparable.
just pointing out to TB that NYC also has questions to him that she would like to see answered here.
where are you TB?
and don't forget the my questions either
Gender equality does not imply gender sameness. I think you are aware of that, TB, but you seem to want someone to assert that gender equality is based on sameness so you can refute them, and argue that the sexes are different, therefore men and women should be treated differently. Yes, the sexes are different, although it is difficult to say how much of that difference is genetic or "natural" and how much environmental or cultural. (The SES is certainly strict about observing gender difference in the environment, but if these differences were really so "natural" and genetic, there would be no need to enforce them culturally.)
You seem eager to apply the philosophical method, TB, which is interesting, because in my experience of SoPP they do not use the philosophical method, premise-argument-conclusion, but instead read out loud an "inspiring" text and ask the students to apply it in their own lives for a week. Anyway, you state "If we are starting with unsupported premises how can we expect the conclusions to be correct?" but what you mean to say is "if we start with a FALSE premise the conclusion will be incorrect" -- an unsupported premise will still lead to a true conclusion, if the premise is true. A nit-picky point I'll admit, but your pedantic tone brings it out of me, TB.
I have a feeling there are a lot of people in the world you find it difficult to get along with, TB, and many of them are women. I would suggest to you, as kindly as I can, that you may not realize how patronizingly you speak. If your relations with women are happy and and harmonious, please accept my apologies for assuming otherwise. If you often feel the women you encounter are hostile to you for seemingly no reason, I suggest it might be your condescending attitude. Nobody likes to be addressed with condescension, although some will tolerate it more than others.
Back to the content of your argument -- I think you fail to comprehend that difference is not an obstacle to equality. Men may be different from women, but still no better or worse. One historical period may be different from another culture, but not necessarily better or worse. SES is a highly hierarchical organizaion, it seems, & it's tough for someone steeped in hierarchical thought to grasp that although two quantities may be different from each other, one is not necessarily better since in the hierarchical system it's always one-up other-down or vice versa.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to belabor this point -- that people do not have to be alike to be equal.
Of course, you may actually believe in your heart of hearts, TB, that men are better than women, whites are better than blacks, Brits are better than Pakis - or you may not, I really don't know. But the simple fact of difference is not evidence of one group's superiority.
TB, while it's big of you to apologize for your lack of sensitivity, you sort of ruin the effect with the implicit insult in "Excuse my complex grammar, I will work to simplify it." It's as if you believe your thought processes are so complicated and intricate that you couldn't possibly expect lesser lights to keep up - and graciously promise to dumb it down so the rest of us can follow you. You are insulting where perhaps you mean to be concilatory. You say yourself that "Not suprisingly most people do interpret this type of questioning and backfill with their assumptions," so why do it that way?
TB, you dropped the word "equal" there, Emmalu9's premise is that "all humans have equal inherent worth" (regardless of differences) and I agree with FreeThinker that "equal inherent worth" is not all that hard to understand unless you just aren't payin attention (or have been schooled in an obsessively hierarchical system where people are not only treated differently based on rank but also have their fundamental humanity disrespected.)
TB, your premise is that "all people are different," which is fine. Advaita Vedanta proposes that all the differences you mention, ethnicity, gender, intelligence, morality, etc. are uppadhis, temporary characteristics, not who a person is. But whatever, you may be so turned off by the SES that Advaita Vedanta is an enormous turn off as well. I don't wish to push Sanskrity ideas on anyone here.
You go on to say that "I believe that, by the way we measure value, this makes them unequal in many ways." But how do "we" measure value? In some cultures, the fastest runner will have the greatest value; in other cultures, the best computer scientist.
But more to the point, the "inherent equal worth" Emmalu9 and Free Thinker speak of has nothing to do with the value of the contribution an individual makes to the group. It's not related to a person's accomplishments. "Inherent equal value" is unearned. It is equal among people of different capabilities, not only because difference is NOT a hindrance to equality, but also because the rock-bottom worth of a person has nothing to do with how s/he acts and everything to do with the fact s/he exists. And I'm a little concerned about anyone who really needs this broken down -- can't you tell that you possess innate value, independent of your abilities? And that other people do as well?
I have heard a lot of adolescents say that they don't respect anybody just automatically, it has to be earned. They assume that others are NOT worthy of respect until proven otherwise. But I think mature people realize it's much better to respect EVERYBODY at a baseline level, no matter how foul the person's behavior.
But let's leave aside the premise that "all people have equal intrinsic worth" in case you still don't undersand or agree, TB. You write that "I also believe that MOST should be offered equal OPPORTUNITY (as opposed to equality itself) to achieve things. But this should not overly affect others." I think your unwillingness to extend equal opportunity to all, even if it "overly affects" others, is symptomatic of a certain grasping unwillingness to give up the high status you've assumed is your birthright as an Englishman, TB. You follow with the example of not giving children or the mentally ill the opportunity to drive a car, but I think this is a bit of a red herring -- I suspect that if you are honest with yourself there are a lot of other opportunities you are really reluctant to extend to people who don't look or act like you do.
Reading over your last post, TB, you seem to be genuinely asking questions from the heart, not just attempting to get somebody to respond so you can slam 'em.
Innate worth, the intrinsic value of a person is not tangible.
Oh you'll know it when you meet it TB. Besides, what worry is it for you? You seem unwilling to admit innate worth exists.
I think you mean to say OTHER people use these empty words to appear virtuous.
If I understand you, TB, you feel that worth -- your own and others - is dependent on what you do. I can only say again, I think there is a baseline of value that each person has, independent of what s/he does. I also hope that you get something, some pleasure or a good feeling when you volunteer your time & energy. If you don't, then don't do it?
don't know any "brie" from "cheesy soap opera" but if you anything about "bree" from the darkly funny Desperate Housewives you would be afraid, very very afraid.
Dear all,
Has anyone noticed how beneficial it is to have TB regularly posting like this?
His messages have contributed immensely to an intelligent critique of the SES and St James.
His posts remind us all of the tone and attitudes that we have experienced in St James and SES. His behaviour in the present confirms our shared views about St James and SES in the difficult past.
I have found TB's views on paedophilia particularly alarming, and remind me of the lack of understanding for children that SES has in general. The moral over-confidence that his messages are full of also are a replica of the language used by authority figures in SES.
Without TB, our discussions and memories would be less meaningful to the outsider. Now, many people considering joining the SES or St James will find this board on e.g. 'yahoo', and look at the discourse that takes place here.
Just like audiences of the best narratives in the world (Shakespeare?! Mozart?! The Upanishads?!), people often respond well to being shown rather than told.
No doubt TB will correct me on this one: In literary terms, I understand its the difference between 'dialectic' (being shown) and 'didactic' (being told).
Thankyou, TB, for showing us what we have left behind at SES and St James.
Please don't be scared off by the personal flaming that you have received on this message board. I for one want you to keep writing, TB.
And your outlook now according to your own words is that these children were not "overly" traumatised by the sexual abuse they endured? You use the verb "overly". What degree of trauma caused by the abuse was visible to you? Please be specific.Do you believe children are damaged and traumatised by sexual abuse?
Yes.The point in question is your comparisons validity (relevance) to our discussion about a school in London. The extreme differences in politics and human situations between UK and the 3rd world renders it invalid.
TB wrote:
I do think that although the brutality at St James did have some differences with other schools in the UK, my basic point remains that many first world schools gave punishment in ways now considered immoral.
This is not in dispute. The two parts of your statement have no obvious connection.
The difference are what made St James unique from other schools, 3rd world or otherwise.
TB wrote:
Deceit, anxiety and stress might be questionable ways to educate adults and children, but that is not the same as asking if they exist in educational systems. If you are not aware of these happening in other schools and institutions does this mean they do not exist? What if they do exist, but you have never considered it?
The solipsistic - If you are not aware how do you know it doesn't exist- type of argument is in this context kindergarden stuff .I could counter every statement you make with this form of reply. Didn't any of the Plato stick from SES?
TB wrote:
let me say that 'beating for not meditating' and 'stop talking' are of course different. They do however apply the same principles of conforming minds to certain imposed standards.
And what is your point drawn from this reductive comparison, and what is it's relevance? It is the misuse of corporal punishment that is important, and the issue under discussion. Amputation of limbs and community service are both ways of dealing with stealing. To state that they are similar forms of "discipline' and apply "the same principles of conforming minds" "looking for common ground" while not incorrect from a remote abstract standpoint is to say nothing useful to the topic whatsoever and to move the discussion to sophist philosophing. Have you not noticed how you consistently veer off track?
TB wrote:
Not having personally attended St James, I can only infer what it was like by the stories on this forum.
Despite admitting you have absolutely no experience of St James in the 70s you infer from these "stories" that past pupils are guilty of creating 'monsters where none existed'.
TB wrote:
I did not intend to compare 3rd world schools to St James, if I did so, I apologise, I was over enthusiatic.
"Over enthusiastic?" your euphemism for being "in error'?
TB wrote:
I take it from this comment that you have visited 3rd world countries and have seen nothing to compare to St James. You mentioned earlier that they were not comparable.
Thus I would not compare. it's very simple.
Once again the point is not about measuring brutality but about the redundancy of your analogies. (As an aside it is very tiresome and demeaning to developing countries to be constantly held up as an example for everything that is brutal bad and negative in the world. There are a lot of positive aspects that seldom get attention, and you may be surprised, a lot of good schools.)
You were in SES for twenty years, were you ever a tutor? Did you lead groups?
TB wrote: yes, I did some tutoring. Is there something behind your question? I sense you are looking for something more, and I will be glad to respond, but I am not sure what you are looking for.
Being fed large doses of indian mysticsm, ouspensky gierdjuif etc and simultaneously subjected to almost incessant pain and stress was a pretty unique mix, and did give me certain insights.
Return to “The North American schools”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests