A couple of follow-ups from Sunday. The winnowing of private tertiary institutions in NZ is starting. This is of some concern, because NZ treats education as an export. In today’s Herald the Labour MP Huo notes that NZ has a reputation for providing a “ghetto education”. This has consequences.
A Ministry of Education report to be released this week is expected to show a 6 per cent drop in overall fee-paying student enrolment. The annual Migration Trends and Outlook, released last Friday, reported a 7 per cent drop in international student approvals to 68,980 – the lowest since 2008. The number of first-time student visa approvals had also dropped about 25 per cent since 2009.
However, Minister for Tertiary Education Steven Joyce said that despite the drop in student numbers, there was a 2 per cent increase in the amount of fees collected by education providers.
The decline had mainly come from fewer students enrolling for language courses, but there was an increase in “higher value” students arriving here last year, he said
Now, there is a problem within our education system. Mort gives an experience of bad teaching: she should have been taught that don’t hit me I’m a girl is a logical fallacy, and to treat logic as a mathematical tool. But she was not.
When he would claim that I had committed some heinous fallacy against logic I would gently explain to him that in him calling all my arguments names he was being rude, and that in fact I was fairly sure he was committing the worst fallacy of all. The fallacy fallacy.
When he would reject my argument I would explain to him (again..calmly) that in appealing to his authority as a teacher he was oppressing my flights of whimsy through is crude application of hard logic.
I think he eventually gave me an F in that class. I thought that was rather cold, especially given that I am a girl and really should have been given some kind of 3 grade handicap just trying to use logic. Everyone knows girls can’t think. That is like asking a white man to jump. It is just plain mean.
Now, this is a lead in to the text for today. Consider, for a second, the blind man. And the Pharisees. Who used logic? Who resorted to abuse and force? And then, who was truly in sin, and therefore blind?
18The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight 19and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” 20His parents answered, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; 21but we do not know how it is that now he sees, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” 22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. 23Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”
24So for the second time they called the man who had been blind, and they said to him, “Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner.” 25He answered, “I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” 26They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” 28Then they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. 29We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” 30The man answered, “Here is an astonishing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners, but he does listen to one who worships him and obeys his will. 32Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34They answered him, “You were born entirely in sins, and are you trying to teach us?” And they drove him out.
35Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36He answered, “And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.” 37Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.” 38He said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped him. 39Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.” 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not blind, are we?” 41Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.
Now, the passage shows the blind man arguing from a principle. That is that no one can heal unless God is working through him. This is accepted (perhaps) by the Pharisees — I would not, because the opposition will do good to gain tactical advantage and every gift from God can be counterfeited — but he then said that Jesus healed him, therefore he must be from God. If he is from God, he must be in God’s good books and not a sinner. The Pharisees answered this with abuse,
And they cast him out. So they were (a) appealing to authority (b) playing the man, not the ball (nihil ad hominem and (c) resorting to force. Three logical fallacies.
We should take from this that the religious can be as coercive as any petty fascist. As a Canadian paper opined concerning the incident at the University of Waterloo (which has been condemned, correctly, by the university: you do not shut down discussions by screaming abuse).
It’s hard to take seriously a grown man dressed in a vagina costume and shouting gibberish as he vainly tries to express intelligent thought.
But the fool who did this and, with a motley mob of protesters, shut down a local member of Parliament’s lecture at the University of Waterloo on Wednesday seriously attacked one of Canada’s most precious rights — the right to speak freely. He and they must be denounced and prevented by the school from committing similar outrages in future.
You do not need to agree with Kitchener Centre MP Stephen Woodworth’s opposition to abortion to realize he had every right to be in a classroom exploring the issue of when human life deserves protection under Canadian law. He was invited and a group of students wanted to hear him. Beyond this, the highest law in the land, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, guarantees his ability to express himself — as it ensures that liberty for all.
Another group, a dozen or so though the exact number is unclear, disagreed, not only with Woodworth’s message but his right to deliver it. One woman screamed as she took over the podium. The clown in the vagina costume shrieked incoherently. Woodworth, knowing he could no longer be heard and that there was no possibility for a reasonable discussion, ended his talk. Meanwhile, uniformed university police officers did nothing to restore order and let him continue. They should have done more.
What a bunch of brats the protesters were. Arrogantly appointing themselves judges and enforcers, they declared Woodworth’s opinions unacceptable for public consumption then empowered themselves to stop him from giving voice to those views.
It has been noted that “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” The bullies who muzzled Woodworth doubtlessly possess enough post-secondary education to conclude the notion of free speech is a quaint relic from a corrupt social order they would happily sweep away. But here’s the catch.
The protesters believe, through their noise and numbers, that they have the right to silence one man — and deny others the ability to hear him. But what if, some day a week or month from now, these same protesters want to speak and a group of opponents, more numerous and physically stronger, appears and begins shouting them down? Who, then, would be crying for the protection of the law and the help of the law enforcement officers?
The right to free speech exists to protect us all, conservative and liberal, religious or non-believer, pro-life or pro-choice. If it can be denied to one of us, none of us is safe.
Free speech was bloodily won. The nonconformists, Anabaptists, Anglicans and Jesuits who died at the stake because they would not go against the word of God and their conscience will stand up and rebuke us if we do not stand with that great puritan Milton, who argued that speech should be free, particularly that speech we despise.
And yes, there are logical fallacies in scripture. Because it records the reactions of men to the work of God. The Pharisees are an example of this, They teach us not to be over-confident in our theology and knowledge, for we are not completely logical.
LOL. You make the most interesting connections, Chris.