Toleration, Privacy and Eminent Corruption
Been writing all day, I think it turned out ok...
Shannon Hollender
Dr. Joe Beatty
Paper two
Due: 3-9-06
Toleration, Privacy and Eminent Corruption
The assignment I’ve been given and the guidelines I’m bound to require me to give “One argument why Beatty is mistaken to tolerate Pettit” and thus I am bound to do so. But these guidelines in themselves leave me with very little room to move in and so I’m ashamed to say, though this is the most feasible topic to do with any sense of accuracy, it is flawed. My claim is that Beatty should not tolerate Petit.
Who cares? What is at stake? On to this issue in a moment, however I preface it with a relevant, though seemingly irrelevant side note: For those of you reading this who do not know Professor Beatty I offer here a brief explanation of his character as is relevant to the case. Professor Beatty is himself rarely mistaken in my opinion. This is a fact due to him wisdom and age – respectable features if ever there were any in this world, and he is rarely mistaken due to the fact that he is thorough, often visiting every possible angle of an argument and every argument possible in a debate. The man can really hunt down logic and reason. In response to this thorough nature of his, to his far reaching knowledge – beyond the reach of my own; I’m supposed to offer some argument to prove him wrong… and this I fear is not possible. But for those interested in how I plan on doing it and still plan on staying within the confines and requirements of this paper (in other words, those of you who care) – feel free to read on. I debate here not for the sake of the issue, but for the sake of argument and debate, as this paper seems with this particular question to require. Also, those interested in seeing a young mind flounder in trying to prove wrong the Petit case in one argument – you might be interested in reading on as well.
My strategy, though it seems long is to follow the directions as laid out before me and come out with some semblance of a feasible argument that is well put together. This in mind I move on to its relevance and the plan. To attack the thorough logic of such a wise man in one argument is sheer madness, yet this is the requirement of the assignment. Therefore, surely I must have a strategy; musn’t I? I indeed do… as I had stated previously. As you are seeing, my first step is to analyze so that I and my reader thoroughly understand the question and confines of the question I am required to answer. One must know the claim, who cares, the argument and the factors effecting or restricting the argument, thus I provide them (see the next paragraph for the argument). From here my strategy will be to prey that I may come up with some divinely supplied knowledge or inspiration that may either find me some loop-hole or that I will get a good grade based on my adherence to the requirements/guidelines of this paper. Whatever happens there; floundering or divine inspiration, I plan on then attacking my own argument with something Beatty himself would likely state. I plan to appreciate it – as the man is superior and far more intelligent to me, then I plan to reply to this attack as if it really weren’t all that relevant, then in summing up my arguments I will attempt to state why even Beatty himself should find my arguments sufficient and why this my (as the paper’s requirements put it) “adversary” should be satisfied with my argument, then to go against the very requirements of the paper as set out in the question I shall offer (by virtue of the rest of the requirements) any number of “further strong objections” made apparent by the paper that “others would make.” Summing up the argument is then the next step in the strategy as provided by our gracious professor, and I plan on here pointing to or underlining the strongest points in my argument – limited as it may be. From there I can do no more than to point out where I am flawed in my own feeble attempts and to acknowledge what is so unsatisfactory in my attempts at an argument against such a far more experienced and superior mind. My final worries, fears, intuitions and regrets will be stated here as well and there, they are that I will fail this paper for offering a literal translation of this topic and that my “originality” in handling this in a manner unlike the rest of the class logically would or will lead me to fail this course. I only hope you – the reader laugh at me in the process.
The argument – as promised; is one of feeble nature at best. However it is a very good one if one stops to consider it in its entirety. Toleration of Petit on the behalf of Beatty is a mistake because it implies the necessity to be ‘ok’ with the concept of teachers teaching by the mantra “do as I say not as I do.” Professor Beatty himself does employ this mantra with his teaching and in this way is an advocate of those who in actuality do not tolerate Petit as a teacher. He is, as I said thorough and open-minded in that he will offer up any side of the argument which seems solid and will visit each topic thoroughly. This is what he does and this is what he requires one to do in the papers assignments and tests he administers.
As was pointed out in class, a teacher by necessity and by coincidence will inadvertently and in a manner quite beyond avoidance, instill a sense of moral rightness in the children by virtue of their actions and position. It is unavoidable that teachers though often inadvertently do in fact teach morals and values to their students and in light of this truism, no matter the particular issue at hand, it follows that a teacher must be of the particular moral persuasion that the society in which they teach wishes to instill in the students which are being taught. Thereby, it is wrong to tolerate Petit on the grounds that she, in her time, was not of the particular tenor that a teacher in her position should exhibit. She not only was sexually “deviant” by the definitions that applied in her time, but she was also an “activist” in her sexual deviancy bringing it as an issue to light and advocating publicly the acceptance of such generally unaccepted morals and ways. This being said, we must now to consider the strongest argument I can come up with in response and pretend that it is Beatty’s own. I’m sorry I do not do you any justice sir.
This brings to mind the argument that sexual persuasion is a matter of personal choice/privilege and begs to be recognized under the heading of “private” and “privacy” as protected in the constitution. Even though at the time of the issue’s advent, the constitution did not recognize this as true; we must recognize that the issue at hand (Beatty should reject/accept Petit) implores that Beatty do so under current circumstances. Thereby his argument of privacy is at current a valid one. We must also consider that Petit herself brought this issue to public view and thereby waived any right she had to aforementioned privacy. Not so, would say Beatty, she kept her practices confined to the private club and tried to get television exposure for this issue behind the mask of anonymity –though feebly – still so. This is a testament to the fact that Petit would not bring her issue to the classroom or the minds and morals of the children. What follows is this: if Petit does not advocate what is a part of her private life to the children it is not something which is detrimental to her ability to teach and thereby is not something which may be used to ban her from teaching.
Now these being two parts of the same argument – privacy; represent a very dynamic claim, one which for me would certainly be enough to persuade me to Beatty’s side. His being that people who have private lives of questionable morality, so long as they keep them private, should be allowed to continue in doing a job which is unaffected by said private choices. The potential damage this can do to my claim is that it can disband it entirely – such to the point that even the supreme court on the recognition of this issue would even side with Beatty in toleration – and did! It blows my claim completely out f the water; figuratively speaking. So to this I am supposed to reply?...
My reply to this objection – in spite of its strength – is this: I reject this claim on the grounds that no matter how private she keeps her practices, no matter how thoroughly she attempts to keep her private life out of her teaching, as I stated in my original argument, she will be unable to. Inadvertently her moral and sexual open-mindedness will not be something she will be able to suppress. She obviously thoroughly believes that what she believes is right, she wouldn’t advocate it publicly – though anonymously, otherwise and therefore, the argument is one which is irrelevant. Her morals, values and beliefs, as started previously in this paper, previously in class and previously by Beatty himself would affect her teaching. These values being considered “detrimental” to her teaching effectiveness/ability would come through in some way, would influence the children in some way and would support the children acting in a way which is more deviant than the accepted ways of the society. Fostering this kind of rebellious behaviour, the kind that is frowned upon by the society in which the incident occurred, and which is still frowned upon in the sexual laws existent; therefore is unacceptable.
This reply should be satisfactory to Beatty as he is a reasonable man and can appreciate that the argument posed here is one of hypothetical nature and one which addresses all the issues relevant to the argument. Being thoroughly addressed as an argument and as an argument being one which attends to facts and logic, it is to right and logical to assume that Beatty has no choice but to accept that this is a truth I argue for. At least as far as reason takes me. Please don’t fault me for overlooking something which is over my own capacity to see. I cannot say that my arguments are flawless, I do not pretend that they are, but as far as I can see, what is outlines here is indeed logical and true as here presented.
Further objections that others might make on behalf of Beatty are that society today is more open minded in nature and that one’s sexual preferences and persuasions are a matter of privacy and are currently protected under the constitution. And since this issue asks that Beatty under the current society and situation reject toleration of Petit, it follows that he may judge with current societal norms laws and practices in mind. This being said I argue that this debate therefore is not debatable as it boils down to (here) a conflict between state laws and constitutionally protected freedoms. Thus one must, in order to determine societal norms and values, on which one’s decisions need to be based, one must first correct the inherent contradiction found between state and federal law. Further pursuit of this logic reveals that according to the laws laid out in our constitution, the state may grant more freedoms but not less and therefore according to this, by technicality, one should not be sexually discriminated against, making it illegal, at least in the minds of some, to outlaw any particular sexual practices – deviant or not. And this applies to employment and discrimination; which is relevant here. The response thus is that the constitution does not address sexual practices just preference. Practice is left to the states to decide and thusly they have. So again, the discrepancy in law must either be addressed or this debate is incapable of having any validity.
So in summary my argument states, quite logically, that Beatty should not tolerate Petit. This is on the grounds that a teacher who tries to employ the mantra “do as I say, not as I do” is incapable, is a bad teacher and in this particular case, would be advocating practices and a particular open-mindedness which it seems is against societal norms and is illegal in many instances and states. Therefore, taking into consideration all objections, including privacy and sexual preference, it still must be said that Beatty would logically have to not tolerate Petit on the grounds that he himself agrees that no matter how hard one might try, they are unable to prevent their moral values from influencing the children they teach and from here it logically follows that if a person’s moral persuasion can will and does come out in what they teach it must either be in accordance with those advocated by the majority of society or the teacher must not teach. Flimsy at best, I know, but that is the general consensus here visited. The jumps from logical point to logical point need more attention and do not flow perfectly, but with the time-constraints given, it is as logical and clear as I believe is necessary to exemplify the point. After all, we are all intelligent beings here. (Though that is questionable considering the writer of this paper is – after all; a college student.)The limits of my claim lie in the nature of value and societal norms. And it is here that I can see some argument which quells my own coming from. That my argument is so focused on this one issue I believe is also a fault however the paper’s requirements said to visit one argument thoroughly and so I was afraid to offer any other topic if it were not clearly connected for fear of losing points on this paper. There is – for instance, the notion that these children both being so young and being so mentally disabled are especially more vulnerable to the values and teachings that Petit offers – inadvertently or not.
Therefore there is much in my argument that is unsatisfactory and though I believe my claims are solid, there is nothing I can say for/to those who still believe that is right to tolerate Petit. Do you tolerate because you accept or do you tolerate because you believe you have to, or do you tolerate based on the premise that toleration is a must and to tolerate is to see something gas wrong and to still allow it anyway. To the latter of those three I offer this: If you believe it to be wrong, no amount of moral better can ever justify allowing something which is “wrong” to continue to occur. Acceptance and toleration is ok, respect of privacy is ok. However in the school setting, the privacy of students is sacrificed on a daily basis, for instance our dorm rooms are subject to search and seizure at any moment, though we rent them as we would rent an apartment, we still must subject ourselves to these conditions, Petit too, in the school setting must be willing to surrender and relinquish toleration to the notion that a school is a special situation and environment in this country, one which different guidelines apply to. With that I reiterate, Beatty should not tolerate Petit, and I add that Petit should accept this, her lot in life.
And on a final note my worries, fears, intuitions and regrets are that I will fail this paper for offering a literal translation of this topic and that my “originality” in handling this in a manner unlike the rest of the class logically would or will have done, will lead me to fail this course. I only hope you – the reader laugh at me in the process. As a motto I heard comes to mind “Some laughter takes away the Obvious Moral Evils thereby making it all O.K.!” or: some laughter minus the ome makes everything ok.
Thank you for tolerating my incoherence, I hope some of it made logical sense or at the very least contained some semblance of humor. Have a good weekend and goodnight.
~Shannon
Shannon Hollender
Dr. Joe Beatty
Paper two
Due: 3-9-06
Toleration, Privacy and Eminent Corruption
The assignment I’ve been given and the guidelines I’m bound to require me to give “One argument why Beatty is mistaken to tolerate Pettit” and thus I am bound to do so. But these guidelines in themselves leave me with very little room to move in and so I’m ashamed to say, though this is the most feasible topic to do with any sense of accuracy, it is flawed. My claim is that Beatty should not tolerate Petit.
Who cares? What is at stake? On to this issue in a moment, however I preface it with a relevant, though seemingly irrelevant side note: For those of you reading this who do not know Professor Beatty I offer here a brief explanation of his character as is relevant to the case. Professor Beatty is himself rarely mistaken in my opinion. This is a fact due to him wisdom and age – respectable features if ever there were any in this world, and he is rarely mistaken due to the fact that he is thorough, often visiting every possible angle of an argument and every argument possible in a debate. The man can really hunt down logic and reason. In response to this thorough nature of his, to his far reaching knowledge – beyond the reach of my own; I’m supposed to offer some argument to prove him wrong… and this I fear is not possible. But for those interested in how I plan on doing it and still plan on staying within the confines and requirements of this paper (in other words, those of you who care) – feel free to read on. I debate here not for the sake of the issue, but for the sake of argument and debate, as this paper seems with this particular question to require. Also, those interested in seeing a young mind flounder in trying to prove wrong the Petit case in one argument – you might be interested in reading on as well.
My strategy, though it seems long is to follow the directions as laid out before me and come out with some semblance of a feasible argument that is well put together. This in mind I move on to its relevance and the plan. To attack the thorough logic of such a wise man in one argument is sheer madness, yet this is the requirement of the assignment. Therefore, surely I must have a strategy; musn’t I? I indeed do… as I had stated previously. As you are seeing, my first step is to analyze so that I and my reader thoroughly understand the question and confines of the question I am required to answer. One must know the claim, who cares, the argument and the factors effecting or restricting the argument, thus I provide them (see the next paragraph for the argument). From here my strategy will be to prey that I may come up with some divinely supplied knowledge or inspiration that may either find me some loop-hole or that I will get a good grade based on my adherence to the requirements/guidelines of this paper. Whatever happens there; floundering or divine inspiration, I plan on then attacking my own argument with something Beatty himself would likely state. I plan to appreciate it – as the man is superior and far more intelligent to me, then I plan to reply to this attack as if it really weren’t all that relevant, then in summing up my arguments I will attempt to state why even Beatty himself should find my arguments sufficient and why this my (as the paper’s requirements put it) “adversary” should be satisfied with my argument, then to go against the very requirements of the paper as set out in the question I shall offer (by virtue of the rest of the requirements) any number of “further strong objections” made apparent by the paper that “others would make.” Summing up the argument is then the next step in the strategy as provided by our gracious professor, and I plan on here pointing to or underlining the strongest points in my argument – limited as it may be. From there I can do no more than to point out where I am flawed in my own feeble attempts and to acknowledge what is so unsatisfactory in my attempts at an argument against such a far more experienced and superior mind. My final worries, fears, intuitions and regrets will be stated here as well and there, they are that I will fail this paper for offering a literal translation of this topic and that my “originality” in handling this in a manner unlike the rest of the class logically would or will lead me to fail this course. I only hope you – the reader laugh at me in the process.
The argument – as promised; is one of feeble nature at best. However it is a very good one if one stops to consider it in its entirety. Toleration of Petit on the behalf of Beatty is a mistake because it implies the necessity to be ‘ok’ with the concept of teachers teaching by the mantra “do as I say not as I do.” Professor Beatty himself does employ this mantra with his teaching and in this way is an advocate of those who in actuality do not tolerate Petit as a teacher. He is, as I said thorough and open-minded in that he will offer up any side of the argument which seems solid and will visit each topic thoroughly. This is what he does and this is what he requires one to do in the papers assignments and tests he administers.
As was pointed out in class, a teacher by necessity and by coincidence will inadvertently and in a manner quite beyond avoidance, instill a sense of moral rightness in the children by virtue of their actions and position. It is unavoidable that teachers though often inadvertently do in fact teach morals and values to their students and in light of this truism, no matter the particular issue at hand, it follows that a teacher must be of the particular moral persuasion that the society in which they teach wishes to instill in the students which are being taught. Thereby, it is wrong to tolerate Petit on the grounds that she, in her time, was not of the particular tenor that a teacher in her position should exhibit. She not only was sexually “deviant” by the definitions that applied in her time, but she was also an “activist” in her sexual deviancy bringing it as an issue to light and advocating publicly the acceptance of such generally unaccepted morals and ways. This being said, we must now to consider the strongest argument I can come up with in response and pretend that it is Beatty’s own. I’m sorry I do not do you any justice sir.
This brings to mind the argument that sexual persuasion is a matter of personal choice/privilege and begs to be recognized under the heading of “private” and “privacy” as protected in the constitution. Even though at the time of the issue’s advent, the constitution did not recognize this as true; we must recognize that the issue at hand (Beatty should reject/accept Petit) implores that Beatty do so under current circumstances. Thereby his argument of privacy is at current a valid one. We must also consider that Petit herself brought this issue to public view and thereby waived any right she had to aforementioned privacy. Not so, would say Beatty, she kept her practices confined to the private club and tried to get television exposure for this issue behind the mask of anonymity –though feebly – still so. This is a testament to the fact that Petit would not bring her issue to the classroom or the minds and morals of the children. What follows is this: if Petit does not advocate what is a part of her private life to the children it is not something which is detrimental to her ability to teach and thereby is not something which may be used to ban her from teaching.
Now these being two parts of the same argument – privacy; represent a very dynamic claim, one which for me would certainly be enough to persuade me to Beatty’s side. His being that people who have private lives of questionable morality, so long as they keep them private, should be allowed to continue in doing a job which is unaffected by said private choices. The potential damage this can do to my claim is that it can disband it entirely – such to the point that even the supreme court on the recognition of this issue would even side with Beatty in toleration – and did! It blows my claim completely out f the water; figuratively speaking. So to this I am supposed to reply?...
My reply to this objection – in spite of its strength – is this: I reject this claim on the grounds that no matter how private she keeps her practices, no matter how thoroughly she attempts to keep her private life out of her teaching, as I stated in my original argument, she will be unable to. Inadvertently her moral and sexual open-mindedness will not be something she will be able to suppress. She obviously thoroughly believes that what she believes is right, she wouldn’t advocate it publicly – though anonymously, otherwise and therefore, the argument is one which is irrelevant. Her morals, values and beliefs, as started previously in this paper, previously in class and previously by Beatty himself would affect her teaching. These values being considered “detrimental” to her teaching effectiveness/ability would come through in some way, would influence the children in some way and would support the children acting in a way which is more deviant than the accepted ways of the society. Fostering this kind of rebellious behaviour, the kind that is frowned upon by the society in which the incident occurred, and which is still frowned upon in the sexual laws existent; therefore is unacceptable.
This reply should be satisfactory to Beatty as he is a reasonable man and can appreciate that the argument posed here is one of hypothetical nature and one which addresses all the issues relevant to the argument. Being thoroughly addressed as an argument and as an argument being one which attends to facts and logic, it is to right and logical to assume that Beatty has no choice but to accept that this is a truth I argue for. At least as far as reason takes me. Please don’t fault me for overlooking something which is over my own capacity to see. I cannot say that my arguments are flawless, I do not pretend that they are, but as far as I can see, what is outlines here is indeed logical and true as here presented.
Further objections that others might make on behalf of Beatty are that society today is more open minded in nature and that one’s sexual preferences and persuasions are a matter of privacy and are currently protected under the constitution. And since this issue asks that Beatty under the current society and situation reject toleration of Petit, it follows that he may judge with current societal norms laws and practices in mind. This being said I argue that this debate therefore is not debatable as it boils down to (here) a conflict between state laws and constitutionally protected freedoms. Thus one must, in order to determine societal norms and values, on which one’s decisions need to be based, one must first correct the inherent contradiction found between state and federal law. Further pursuit of this logic reveals that according to the laws laid out in our constitution, the state may grant more freedoms but not less and therefore according to this, by technicality, one should not be sexually discriminated against, making it illegal, at least in the minds of some, to outlaw any particular sexual practices – deviant or not. And this applies to employment and discrimination; which is relevant here. The response thus is that the constitution does not address sexual practices just preference. Practice is left to the states to decide and thusly they have. So again, the discrepancy in law must either be addressed or this debate is incapable of having any validity.
So in summary my argument states, quite logically, that Beatty should not tolerate Petit. This is on the grounds that a teacher who tries to employ the mantra “do as I say, not as I do” is incapable, is a bad teacher and in this particular case, would be advocating practices and a particular open-mindedness which it seems is against societal norms and is illegal in many instances and states. Therefore, taking into consideration all objections, including privacy and sexual preference, it still must be said that Beatty would logically have to not tolerate Petit on the grounds that he himself agrees that no matter how hard one might try, they are unable to prevent their moral values from influencing the children they teach and from here it logically follows that if a person’s moral persuasion can will and does come out in what they teach it must either be in accordance with those advocated by the majority of society or the teacher must not teach. Flimsy at best, I know, but that is the general consensus here visited. The jumps from logical point to logical point need more attention and do not flow perfectly, but with the time-constraints given, it is as logical and clear as I believe is necessary to exemplify the point. After all, we are all intelligent beings here. (Though that is questionable considering the writer of this paper is – after all; a college student.)The limits of my claim lie in the nature of value and societal norms. And it is here that I can see some argument which quells my own coming from. That my argument is so focused on this one issue I believe is also a fault however the paper’s requirements said to visit one argument thoroughly and so I was afraid to offer any other topic if it were not clearly connected for fear of losing points on this paper. There is – for instance, the notion that these children both being so young and being so mentally disabled are especially more vulnerable to the values and teachings that Petit offers – inadvertently or not.
Therefore there is much in my argument that is unsatisfactory and though I believe my claims are solid, there is nothing I can say for/to those who still believe that is right to tolerate Petit. Do you tolerate because you accept or do you tolerate because you believe you have to, or do you tolerate based on the premise that toleration is a must and to tolerate is to see something gas wrong and to still allow it anyway. To the latter of those three I offer this: If you believe it to be wrong, no amount of moral better can ever justify allowing something which is “wrong” to continue to occur. Acceptance and toleration is ok, respect of privacy is ok. However in the school setting, the privacy of students is sacrificed on a daily basis, for instance our dorm rooms are subject to search and seizure at any moment, though we rent them as we would rent an apartment, we still must subject ourselves to these conditions, Petit too, in the school setting must be willing to surrender and relinquish toleration to the notion that a school is a special situation and environment in this country, one which different guidelines apply to. With that I reiterate, Beatty should not tolerate Petit, and I add that Petit should accept this, her lot in life.
And on a final note my worries, fears, intuitions and regrets are that I will fail this paper for offering a literal translation of this topic and that my “originality” in handling this in a manner unlike the rest of the class logically would or will have done, will lead me to fail this course. I only hope you – the reader laugh at me in the process. As a motto I heard comes to mind “Some laughter takes away the Obvious Moral Evils thereby making it all O.K.!” or: some laughter minus the ome makes everything ok.
Thank you for tolerating my incoherence, I hope some of it made logical sense or at the very least contained some semblance of humor. Have a good weekend and goodnight.
~Shannon
posted by Shannon Hollender @ 4:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home