Resistance is futile.
Really? Because I usually have more fun when I give in.
You haven't given in if you never resisted.
Okay, I guess it's a fair question. Never, ever ever. Nor would I, nor would I tolerate that in my children.
Why not? What if, in response to this new testing system, cheating becomes the norm? Meaning your children are competing not just with individual cheaters but whole networks of children cheating for a better future?
Ah! The Future Cheaters -- one of Tim Flannery's lesser-known works.
linger - heh! Love it.
Anyone here read his "Wayleggo"? (Think that's the title, temporarily unable to access library.) Contains one of the more disgusting scenes I've ever read (and no, I dont mean the the instructive sequence about
about how to disassemble a human body for back-transport)
Meaning your children are competing not just with individual cheaters but whole networks of children cheating for a better future?
If they are cheating then there is no way of accurately assessing their own progress and therefore no chance of their teachers knowing what it is they need to learn. And, in general, cheaters do eventually get caught out (if not by being caught in the act then by having to admit incompetence in a "real-world" situation they are only technically qualified for).
Anyone here read his "Wayleggo"? (Think that's the title, temporarily unable to access library.)
This? Great guy, great writer, great read.
And, in general, cheaters do eventually get caught out (if not by being caught in the act then by having to admit incompetence in a "real-world" situation they are only technically qualified for).
hence: Made in China, and the various connotations of that label on products. However, I feel, 50,000 hospitalized children isn't a humane 'caught in the act' scenario (and I'm sure Fonterra and FOnterra shareholders would agree on that point). So I'm interested to see if the same trends will come to pass in NZ, especially as NZ kids are already competing against them in the tertiary sector, and you only have to look online to find the various cheat sites that enabled them to successfully pass the IELTS exams to gain admittance to study in NZ, and that's not even taking into account the FTA's job allocation system.
...and when examining it from a chicken and egg perspective, I'm fairly confident that it's a natural cultural manifestation rather than a response to the education system. My main point, I think, (if I have one) is; the introduction of this testing, favors the Chinese students in New Zealand (of which there are a few), which leads me to wonder whether the rest will be content to be left behind in the good name of honesty, or will be forced to compete on a new more sinister playing field....
Tim Flannery-The Future Cheaters
Dontchaluv human brains?
(good South Island shepherd speak to dogs...)
And yep Joe - great - indeed must - read-
Dontchaluv human brains?
Love that ability to free-associate.
What if, in response to this new testing system, cheating becomes the norm? Meaning your children are competing not just with individual cheaters but whole networks of children cheating for a better future?
I can't see why the new testing regime would cause this, given no previous testing regime has.
However, my son is off next year to a school (Unlimiited Paenga Tawhiti) which doesn't have a standard curriculum. I'm struggling to imagime how you would cheat at a Learner-Directed Experience. Even getting outside help is considered a skill.
I can't see why the new testing regime would cause this, given no previous testing regime has.
Clear national standards in reading, writing, and numeracy will be negotiated with the education sector. Secondly, all primary schools will be required to use assessment programmes that compare the progress of their students with those standards. Schools will be able to choose from a range of tools including existing ones. Thirdly, parents will have the right to see all assessment information and receive regular plain English reports about their child’s progress towards national standards.
There could be said to be certain incentives to get a higher grade.
while back on topic
Like Emma I think that in the NZ setting that sort of wide-scale cheating is unlikely to happen (and, also like Emma, I've chosen schools (Discovery1 currently) where it's unlikely to be relevant) but, even if it were one of the this I'd like my children to learn (even more than I want them to learn literacy or numeracy) is the value of doing what is right over what is profitable.
(could I construct a paragraph with more parentheses?)
Like Emma I think that in the NZ setting that sort of wide-scale cheating is unlikely to happen
yea, (that's totally right), i really should stop with these tenuous arguments, playing devil's advocate's assistant too long is hard work.
Watched 'righteous kill' last night;
The chaaracter Tom says;
"most people respect the badge, everyone respects the gun."
So in case Eddie Clark, Danielle, Sacha etc ever watch this movie or another like it (of which there are many), and get caught on these lines, and naturally assume there must have been some kind of mistake, or are flummoxed to the point that you are overcome by that cute desire to write in and correct De Niro or the screenwriter. This thread could serve as a helpful reference point in lieu of days wagged.
So in case Eddie Clark, Danielle, Sacha etc ever watch this movie or another like it (of which there are many), and get caught on these lines, and naturally assume there must have been some kind of mistake
Mark, dude, I am On Holiday. Are you making a point, or just trying to piss people off?
Mark, most of us make distinctions between creative use of language and the more precise kind you need when arguing a point. That's all. You'll find both kinds enjoyably woven through the discussions here.
Just checking if anyone was there; r No more gin* for mark.
*an alcoholic liquor obtained by distilling grain mash with juniper berries. not a stationary prime mover having a drive shaft rotated by horizontal beams pulled by horses walking in a circle.
Ahh, isn't gin a depressant? I mean the juniper liquor, though the other was probably also depressing for both horses and proletariat.
Ahh, isn't gin a depressant?
Damn right it's a depressant Sacha, I've moved onto White Russians with Malibu this morning.
With all due respect Emma, the assumption that people contribute here simply to 'piss people off' is a tad fanciful. People contribute to express opinion and share knowledge. Despite differences in opinion, contributors generally read with open eyes, without resorting to easy put downs in the safe knowledge that the posting box at the bottom protects their right of reply. their right to clarify and their right to construe. So, to be sure Emma, I posted neither to make a point nor to piss people off but to clarify on an oversight on my part in relation to a point I felt I had not made with due care previously. A point made in respect to the definition of respect. I feel there's nothing too inappropriate about posting on this subject in light of the origins of the word;
1300–50; (n.) ME (< OF) < L respectus action of looking back, consideration, regard, equiv. to respec-, var. s. of respicere to look back (re- re- + specere to look) + -tus suffix of v. action; (v.) < L respectus ptp. of respicere
First, as suggested by its derivation from the Latin respicere, which means “to look back at” or “to look again,” respect is a particular mode of apprehending the object: the person who respects something pays attention to it and perceives it differently from someone who does not and responds to it in light of that perception.
Looking back at some of the quibbles levied at my presupposed misuse of the term, I drunkenly feel morally obligated to ensure a clarity of understanding is reached.
So Sacha, if I may;
most of us make distinctions between creative use of language and the more precise kind you need when arguing a point
I do not argue that distinctions need to be made, The distinctions we make are a personal venture, and usually unconscious. However I'm not wholly in disagreement that the distinction required in this case is between creative use of a language and that other type you so eruditely elucidate. I feel the distinction required is simply in computing the intended and most relevant interpretation of the verb 'respect' as used in the post that lured you.
Generally speaking, the collected reader is able to distinguish and interpret through many shades of meaning, acclimatizing the use or placement of given words with their trajectory. The world of language is not a clamor of boxes, each seeking your full and undivided attention, but a series; a continuum of signposts. Sacha I was hastened by your posts, to put this down. Particularly your post;
Mark, it's two quite different concepts being labelled with the same name. Just look at the difference in the modifiers in those definitions - "esteem, worth, excellence, quality" vs "deference, privilege, acceptance, acknowledgement".
As if the these 'two quite different concepts' were somehow inconveniently 'labelled' in defiance of the greater good. Quite different? Or merely different ends of the same piece of twine? If we need look more closely at the origin of the word;
c.1300, from L. respectus "regard," lit. "act of looking back at one," pp. of respicere "look back at, regard, consider," from re- "back" + specere "look at" (see scope (1)). The verb is 1542, from the noun. Meaning "treat with deferential regard or esteem" is from 1560; respectable "worthy of respect" is from 1586 (implied in respected).
Observe that the deferential use of 'respect' predated the 'distinct' attitudinal definition (that some would claim is mandatory), by 26 years: The interpretation 'worthy of respect' following logically from the initial simple respect.
It wasn't left there, the cavalry of languages past and present was let loose at the speed of vomit. Sacha, (I heartily thank you for this) you encouraged me to think of mana and how someone gets it;
I encourage you to think of "mana" and how someone gets it.</quote
I quite congenially interpreted that you referred to the maori term 'mana', not the Turkish meaning, meaning 'meaning', nor the Coatian definition; 'defect'. 'Mana'
<quote> From Polynesian religion, and its modern use is a result of the popularization of the concept by anthropology and, to a great extent, by certain varieties of fantasy fiction. In Polynesian culture (e.g., Hawaiian, Māori), mana is analogous to respect, but it combines elements of respect, authority, power, and prestige.
A word that has very little bearing on my initial intended meaning, we do have 'authority' and 'power' in there, but it's a noun. Nonetheless your post was educational, in terms of gauging why some people felt 'respect' was inadequate in my initial post. Doubtless, a different word, a different inference, from a different language.
That's not respect. That's fear.
and Eddie Clark,
Ha! I am proved correct. Mark, you're conflating obedience and respect. A certain about of obedience to authority is indeed required for a properly ordered society (the degree of obedience is very much up for debate). That ISN'T the same as respect. To use a slightly extreme example, I wouldn't respect a hypothetical homophobic cop in the slightest, but I might well be obedient in order to avoid negative consequences to myself.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy seeks to distinguish some interpretations of 'respect'. These are not distinctions between the creative and 'argumentative'(definition 3) use., but between the behavioral and attitudinal uses. Here are some examples given;
We might speak of drivers respecting the speed limit, hostile forces as respecting a cease fire agreement, or AIDS as not respecting national borders, and in such cases we can be referring simply to behavior which avoids violation of or interference with some boundary, limit, or rule, without any reference to attitudes, feelings, intentions, or dispositions, and even, as in the case of the AIDS virus, without imputing agency (Bird 2004)
Danielle and Eddie, no i did not mean fear, I wasn't conflating. I do not dispute the later attitudinal variation of the term. I merely seek that my use of the initial intended behavioral meaning be respected by my peers, not in attitude(obviously), but at least in behavior(if possible).
So to my initial post, and the distinctly passive use of 'respect';
When you breed a culture where the teacher is not respected, regardless of how good or bad they are, you not only undermine your own child's education, but by peer corroboration, the education of their fellow students too.
In light of the various forces, encountered by this teacher without prestige over the course of this engaging tit for tat, summed up quite poignantly by Mr. Eddie Clark of Wellington with his decidedly eloquent;
No I just think you're wrong, Mark
My point has been duly illustrated.
Sorry to interrupt Emma, have a good one.
Nice. It would appear so. :)
This is just my personal inference, but does anyone else spot the irony in a very lengthy post on respect that (I think) pours a ton of charmless scorn onto other posters?
I suppose I can now consider myself educated on the etymology of the word 'respect'. But Mark, the general tone of your post makes me really wonder whether on balance I haven't actually been lessened by the reading thereof.
With all due respect Emma, the assumption that people contribute here simply to 'piss people off' is a tad fanciful.
Mark, I didn't mean people, I meant you in particular. Why? Two things. The tone of your post as I read it was snarky, sarcastic and exaggerated. And two, you'd already said this on this thread:
i really should stop with these tenuous arguments, playing devil's advocate's assistant too long is hard work
Those were the reasons I suspected that you might not have been serious, and that your post was a deliberate attempt to needle people.
These are the only circumstances in which I have much time for people who 'play devil's advocate' (or devil's advocaat): if they say, before they start, something like 'just to play devil's advocate for a moment, what if...'. Otherwise it just reads like arguing in bad faith, which is something trolls do.
So if I've found that someone is arguing points they don't actually believe, I'm more reluctant to engage with them in future, when they might be serious, but I can't tell. You've also made sarcastic remarks about other posters, and inferred things about me that simply weren't true. I have no problems with people bringing different perspectives and asking difficult questions - I'd encourage it - but I'd prefer it was done with honesty and respect. And I mean 'respect' the way Danielle, Eddie, Isabel and I interpreted the word.
So before I sit down on the other thread and explain for the fourth time why it actually isn't easy to distinguish between erotica and pornography, I'd like you to mull that, because otherwise I'm simply not going to consider it worth my time.