logical framework for change

corneilius

Well-known member
Hi Oh dissenters .........

For you, An exercise in logic, which is design to re-align ALL discussions with Politicians, Councillors, Religious Teachers, Lay Teachers, Parents and anyone I have left out ......!

1. We can agree that there are adults on Earth.

2. We can agree that there are children on Earth.

3. We can agree that there are things adults do, directly or indirectly, that have a negative or abusive impact upon the welfare of children in the present and in the future.

4. It follows that, as carers, we must immediately cease those behaviours/activities that directly or indirectly have a negative or asbusive impact upon the welfare of children in the present and in the future.

5. We can discuss how we take it form there, having stopped the damaging behaviour/activity......

6. Discussing the issue prior to cessation only allows the abuse to continue.

This is the only way to frame any discussions with those who govern, who run businesses, who run schools and universities and all others who wish to facillitate positive change ...... any and all other approaches are subject to the me, me, me insecurities which current conventional wisdoms inculcate in our young - you have been through the 'education system', you are looking for your salvation .... forget both.



"On this depends my liberation: to assist others - nothing else." -

from Path Of Hero's

Kindest regards

Corneilius

do what you love, it's your gift to universe (and it gets certain people's backs up .... he he heh!)
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
This is the only way to frame any discussions with those who govern, who run businesses, who run schools and universities and all others who wish to facillitate positive change ......

but its focus is solely negative change- e.g. stopping some behaviours, not positive, which would focus on increasing those things which have a beneficial impact (or do you assume teachers etc are only ever damaging?).

don't think it would go down too well at parent's evening, frankly
 
S

simon silverdollar

Guest
to be pedantic and annoyingly analytical-philosophy about it, 4 doesn't follow from 3. you need more premisses.
 

swears

preppy-kei
corneilius- Are you a teacher or involved in education yourself? Just wondering what angle you're coming from.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
The-Cosmic-Jokers-Planeten-Sit-In--331063.jpg
marvingaye_whatsgoingon.jpg


Good (essential) sentiment. The logic needs work, yes. Perhaps we can work it out here.

matt b - it's just in the way cornelius has worded, it shouldn't have to solely be about negating behaviour.
 

JimO'Brien

Active member
I think the problem with the argument is in point 3. We can agree that adults do things that are detrimental to children but I douby very much whether we can agree what these things are. Many people are very certain not giving children a good thrashing on a regular basis to teach them manners is a bad thing but I don't think that is what Cornelius has in mind.
 

sherief

Generic Human
After we agree that there are adults and children on earth, that argument gets slippery...very slippery, and that's putting it a nice way, let's not even talk about the threat of a disciplinary society...thoughtcrime!
 
Top