Back to Leave No Child Behind

Exactly, but I am not the one that demonstrated such a failure.


Strawman. I did not attempt to demonstrate the relative worth of the Texas and Michigan school systems. I was specifically using Texas to illustrate that your focus was too narrow.


Being in an industry that does require periodic recertification, I can certainly see both sides of this issue. Recertifying every five years does not sound like an outrageous burden to me. However, I do not know the specifics of what is required to recertify.

Strawman. I never made such a claim. Also, you asked "do you think..." then you complain about me having an opinion?

Yesterday, you demonstrated that you do not understand (or chose to ignore) the definition of argument ad hominem. Today, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of a straw man. However, that did not prevent you from using one yourself (see my previous post).
---------------------

I provided an example that refutes the idea that those without master's degrees are inferior teachers.

First of all, no one ever said that those without master's degrees are inferior teachers.

Second, that is not what was being addressed at this point.

Third, your entire set of posts are too simplistic to bother with.

Does it? How? Your use of language in this instance is sloppy; don't try to claim that it scores points.

What a laugh! You could tell that to the NYTimes or to Dr. Gregory Nagy, chairman of the Classics Department at Harvard! After all, who are you?

DD -- Address some of issues that I raised. Your manner is completely childish. Take a nap: you need your rest.

1. Forgive me, but you implied that those with master's degrees were superior teachers. Does that not imply that those without master's degrees are inferior to those who do have such a degree?
2. Yes, it was.
3. You retreat yet again to ad hominem attacks.

I'm sure that one of us is confused about logic errors. I'm fairly certain that it is not me.

Can you please cite where I used a strawman argument?

My, my... What grandiose ideas you have. Are you on the staff of the New York Times? Do you have Ph.D.? No?

I pointed out where your language was, shall we say, less than precise. And instead of addressing the issue you retreat to petulance. Nice. Excellent job of supporting your position.

LOL! How long did it take you to come up with that one?

Oh, wait, you already used the "take a nap" line.

POM, I'm more than happy to return the thread to a discussion of policy. Please feel free to reintroduce the issues that you feel have been overlooked.

For clarification:

Ad hominem: 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect - 2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character, demeanor, intellect, knowledge, or other personal characteristics rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

Straw man: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted. It is most commonly used as an ad hominem.

Non sequitur: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said. It can also be used as an ad hominem.

Observation: Timber and Drew have been only marginally guilty of these in this exchange, if at all.

Well, that would be a subjective evaluation, as presented. It would appear to me POM scores style of argument highly, possibly more highly than substance of argument. In the spirit of fairness and balance, however, lets take a look at the evidence on this thread as might pertain to style points. For brevity, I'll confine this examination to timber and POM, mostly ignorin' Drew and the others. I'll report, you decide.

timber: Enters the already well-under way discussion with a self-quoted post of statements of factual nature, each and every one verifiable, and, as far as I was able to discern, not one of which received any substantive address, let alone credible refutatuion.

timber: A quip, admittedly partisan and uncomplimentary in nature, but directed toward an entire amorphous, socio-political demographic, not at anyone in particular in this conversation, and not incivil.

timber: An encouragin' pat-on-the-back aside to another participant in the conversation, one with whom timber frequently, and heatedly, disagrees.

timber: An entirely civil statement of agreement pertainin' to a post by another participant.

timber: A brief, civil commentary on the role the US railroads and railroad unions played in their own decline.

POM: Dismissive and disparagin', but if ad hominem, borderline at best as the reference was by implication only, with no direct reference to anyone in the discussion. Hardly civil, in any event.

POM: An actual ad hominem, directly referencin' a participant in the discussion, coupled with cum hoc ergo propter hoc, and, though only inferentially, a touch of false dichotomy.

timber: Gettin' a little testily opinionated. However, to attribute ad hominem to the comment would take somethin' of a leap. Subjectively possible, perhaps, but if so, only inferrentially.

timber: A civil, if pointed, statement of fact.

timber: And another.

timber: An opinionated, entirely civil observation.

POM: Strawman/mis-attribution/projection/illogical, unfounded assertion/ad hominem - all in a bare dozen words. Quite a feat - a mastershot.

timber: A direct, and entirely civil, rebuttal to the above

POM: non sequitur perhaps, but despite the derisive tone, not really ad hominem. Real close, though, and again, hardly civil.

timber: Testy again, pointin' out logical fallacies contained within posts counter to timber's opinion, and presentin' factual rebuttal to same. Civilly, however.

timber: A reasonable, civil conjecture.

POM: Clearly ad hominem.

POM: At the very least, inferrential ad hominem, and quite arguably incivil.

timber: A conjectural observation, addressin' an above cited ad hominem, pointed, perhaps, but civil.

POM: Clear ad hominem coupled with unsuported allegation.

POM: Ditto - doubly so

timber: A civil, and factual, response to an earlier ad hominem.

POM: A re-itteration of an earlier referrenced ad hominem and unsupported - arguably contra-indicated - allegation, though perhaps redeemed a bit in that it could be inferred to be legitimate critical opinion in form, despite the contemptuous thrust and erroneous substance of the commentary. Difficult to characterize as resemblin' civil discourse.

POM: Ad hominem coupled with false deduction.

POM: Marginally incivil, re-itteratin' an already well-worn false assertion.

POM: A clear ad hominem, included here not because it was directed at me per se, but because it mentioned me.

POM: Disparagin', referrences me by way of an implied ad hominem directed toward another poster.

POM: Unambiguously ad hominem

timber: A civil, if pointed, statement of opinion

POM: Unambiguous ad hominem - deja vu all over again.

POM: Multiple ad hominem, along with erroneous, unwarranted assumptions presented as assertions of fact. Another mastershot.

POM: 3-pronged ad hominem? Almost another mastershot.

timber: Another pointed, but civil, personal observation.


OK - that's my report. I may have missed a relevant post or two, but I think that pretty well encompasses all of timber's posts on this thread, and the entire interaction between POM and timber in the discussion. Now, if anyone cares to, go right ahead and decide.

Not that anybody's keepin' score, mind you :wink:

1-2-3-4, I declare a flame war....

Timber and Drew know how to spell 'non sequitur' when they accuse somebody of using it, even in dialect, too

No Child Left Behind will go down in history as just another mess created by George Bush.

History can be cruel.

I don't understand why you would write, "History can be cruel."

cicerone imposter: have I missed anything interesting?

That depends on what interests you. I have been trying to read this thread for the past three days. It was seized by a few bullies who rendered it unreadable and useless as a source of information.

Atkins - Just who, in your mind, might be those "bullies", and by what criteria do you make assessment of bullying?

Of course, this is essentially a rhetorical inquiry. Confidently, I await confirmation of my assumptions.