What raised my ire here (and since I've got a bad cold, I am perhaps-------- Original Message --------
a little less tolerant than usual) is, first, seeing the oceanplasma
folks make unsupportable, erroneous statements to support the use of
a product, and, second and more strongly, seeing someone (whoever
wrote the line that Chris quoted) hide a political or religious
agenda behind a plea for tolerance, using the old canard "How can
students be taught to challenge popular ideas when they are only
presented a one-sided view?"
This sort of plea to "tolerance" (the liberal Achille's heel) has
long been used to sneak in agendas that I consider evil or at least
dishonest. Since Chris asked if I would ever teach using the same
name-calling that I used in describing the above kind of ignorance or
deception, here's what I do. If one of my students asked "But doesn't
GMO corn have higher yields than non GMO?" I would answer with the
same calm logic that I used to explain what a scientific theory is.
But if one of my students used the tactic of saying "If you are
against GMO corn, then you must want people to starve to death," (the
Monsanto party line) then I would be much less kind in my answer.
That's the same kind of argument as "How can students be taught to
challenge ideas . . ." and its real agenda is to deceive. We need to
be on our guard whenever we see statements like that, and recognize
that all statements in that class are designed to manipulate and set
up a smokescreen. Those sorts of statement s are vicious, and if
someone uses them, or even quotes them without seeing the dishonesty
behind them, they are going to get a strong reaction from me. There
is no room in honest discourse for that sort of lie, and it's
frustrating to see people deceived by it.
Toby http://patternliteracy.com
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.