Freedomain Radio

(I still go to highschool btw)

I take a history course and my teacher, a good teacher i presume, likes to have class debates. Im not really a huge history buff, as i find its usually a debate based on who has the best/most recent information, but we were talking about the spanish, the gold and the breakdown of their economy. etc etc.

The conversation somehow turned to country, nationalism, states etc etc. Here, my teacher and I got into a standoff where, it kind of ended up like stefs 'dealing with a statist conversation' but instead, she admited she was immoral. It was pretty wierd, I did not know what to say... it was after i asked if the government does things that she doesnt like, and she said yes.. and then i said so you support the immoralities of government, which makes you, yourself, immoral. and she said 'yes.'

and then there was a pause, because i was kind of shocked.

then, i said "well, okay" and the debate turned elsewhere...

I did not pursue it... but just to mention, one of the girls in my class said that "we have no choice" but i havnt talked to her about it yet either.
a couple others told me to go live in the forest somewhere.

I have about 3 friends who agree with me.. in a school of about 3000 kids. (big high school).

I just thought i would share this, as it was really shocking how someone would agree that they are immoral.


PS: shes a nice teacher, really... (she gave me my lowest mark though, 78! i need to get into a good university!! and i have no money, I need some scholarships!!)

Wow O_O

sunshineman:

(I still go to highschool btw)

..and then i said so you support the immoralities of government, which makes you, yourself, immoral. and she said 'yes.'

and then there was a pause, because i was kind of shocked.

then, i said "well, okay" and the debate turned elsewhere...

I had a similar experience when I asked someone "who owns that arm" pointing at his arm, and he answered:me, but also the government and my parents.

I was also so shocked that I cold not respond any further. 

If you reeeaally wanted to push it, you could just say; "ok, so how can I take you seriously as a teacher then?"

But you don't need to. You got everything you need to know from the debate. 

Tuttle:

If you reeeaally wanted to push it, you could just say; "ok, so how can I take you seriously as a teacher then?"

But you don't need to. You got everything you need to know from the debate. 

haha if i did this... i would have failed... im hoping that this is just a phase and that university will be different.. tho im not tooo optimistic..

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I recently had a follow up with the 'arm guy' in this direction, that might show your where this could lead to. It went roughly like this:

-I was a bit disturbed when you said the government owned your arm and was curious how different commands from the government and yourself are handled. Does this mean that if the government tells you to shoot someone with your arm, this has highest priority ?

*yes

-So you are a hitman, the government official points at someone and you shoot him ?

*If you want to put it like that, yes, I am a reserve officer in the army and if the state of emergency is declared ...."

-But declaring the state of emergency is just writing "state of emergency" on a piece of paper, and then they control your arm

+(another person jumped in (statist, atheist)) But this means you are a slave

*well, but I am still the one to decide, but if I don't, I get shot

-But this mean you DO own your arm, but you do what the government says out of fear of being shot yourself

   (I wish I had said here:by another slave hitman)

*yes

The discussion touched a number of areas in which * declared that science is just another religion, because logic is just something you have to believe in + and me disagreed. * embraces everything that creates fog and moral relativity. He loves:

1.Godels incompleteness theory which states any theory is either inconsistent or incomplete.

2.Quantum physics: you cannot determine if something is a particle or a wave.

3.Even gravity was not reliable, since statistically all atoms could one time in a zillion decide to move upwards 

I tried the following

-How can you determine between a true and a false statement ?

*you can not 

-But that statement you just made (you can not), is that true or false ?

*you can't tell

-but you sounded very certain stating that it is impossible to determine between a true and a false statement

*but that is how I feel know, but tomorrow it could be different

-So there is no point in listening to you ?

*no there isn't, there is just entertainment in the discussion

At this point I was again flabbergasted. I took his advice, but after being reassured that he DO owns his arm (here I thought:yes, we are going in the right direction), I got someone at an even worse point, because he might say something different every day. Maybe tomorrow the government owns his arm again. I can't understand how you can sit back contently and say: there is no point in listening to me

I do understand now that this person did not read Godels incompleteness theory or quantum physics and concluded from that reality was foggy and there are no absolute truths. Godel just fits in nicely into something that no doubt goes back to the foo. "My parents don't seem to be able to present me with universal truths (they stick with themselves), there are no such rules"

 

Peter, you could see this as a very clear message from this guy: "please stop talking to me if you want intellectual integrity."

Question is, why are you talking to this guy?

He was walking into a conversation I was having with + and apparently felt like participating (first time since the arm conversation which was months ago). The fact he jumped in, seems in contradiction with the assumption:please stop talking to me about intellectual integrity. There was no practical reason for him to jump in either. He seems to enjoy a debate as some kind of entertainment. As a colleague, some interaction is inevitable.

This retreat into moral reletivism or disregard for morality is something I run into all the time when I debate people.  It's as if any belief in objective morality is somehow un-hip or square.  I think some people have no confidence in their ability to reason objectively about issues of morality and so their defence mechanism is to retreat to undefendable positions.  Other people, I think, simply don't want to disengage from the mainstream debates and so they mock arguments for objective morality by refusing to take seriously their own immoral positions.

its amazing that some people will actually admit that they are immoral or have no morals  when you pin them down on it.

 
I had a friend like that, the last time i talked to him he said 'I dont like rich people because I think they can do something better with their money'

so then we we talked about what does better mean,  we agreed that it is impossible to say what is better, giving money to an orphanage vs starting a business etc. etc.  

then i said well you make alot more then the average family and if you look at poor people you make a hell of a lot more then them, and thats not even going outside of the US where people make $1 a day.  and you donate none of your money to charity's etc. so would those people not look at you as a 'bad' person.  

he pretty much admitted to being a hypocrite and said i dont care i dont want to change its not worth changing.  he was attacking me every so often along the way when his points fell apart.  but im just lucky i did not work with him.

 

i dont think it makes sense to push the subject with a teacher,  someone who holds that much power over you is someone it does not make sense to piss off.  I was never able to talk to teachers/bosses like that.  but other students and employees i would go to town on. 

  There is a point when guns are better than words at solving problems. You have to have some sort of principle in common with the person you are arguing with if you are actually trying to persuade him. .I am sure you had something in common with some of your students though so still may have been worth denouncing him in front of people.  He admitted to being an advocate of violence and immorality, so  I think given the circumstances he could be a threat to your life.  

You could have asked the teacher how his relationships were going just to get a kick out of it.