Posted: Nov 25, 2015 5:59 pm
by Thomas Eshuis
crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote:
You've not only misconstrued much of what I said, you changed the facts.

What's the point in quoting my entire response if you're not going to address what I said?
And, no I did not change the facts in the slightest, you have to read the OP carefully/thoroughly.

crank wrote: It's a quite different situation if the guy who returned the books said someone 'made' him do it, that wasn't in your first version in the OP.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

So finally, with one minute left, one student retrieved the books from the cupboard and handed them back.
When I asked them why he would do such a thing, he said that someone had handed them to him. When I asked who, he said he would not tell.
Therefore I told him that, until he does tell, everything would be his responsibility and that I would contact his tutor/counsellor (not sure what the correct word is in English, the teacher who manages your affairs during the year).

I think I know how to read, please point to where it's said someone made him do it?

The point where I asked him why he took the books and hid them and he said that someone gave them to him.

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote:
You have said absolutely nothing to give anyone to think that this wasn't an isolated event.

Where did I say it was or wasn't?
All I've said is that the victim gave me the impression it wasn't, because he said things like 'they' are always out to 'get him'.

You're right, I forgot that.
This goes with the 'made' thing. It makes no sense to me as you reported it, if he actually said 'made' then I would agree, there was probably something more serious going on, like maybe there is one or a small group of bullies going after much of the class. But, having just now gone back through all of your posts, he assures the counselor that it isn't systematic. Now I'm beginning to think it really is.

How do you figure?

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote:
I made it clear if it was a pattern, that would be different, and more serious.

And I made it clear that your personal impression that hiding your books is a lame thing to do, is a fallacious appeal to personal incredulity.

No, that's not even what I said, I said it wasn't serious, which, by itself, it isn't.

So you blindly assert.
It is serious, it demonstrates disrespect for the victim. Especially when said victim is visibly upset by the entire incident and both he and I are telling them to hand the books back.

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote: I'm sorry you don't understand how a kid sees you as authority, and if he shows real deference to that, he won't make a good skeptic, but it's crystal clear to me.

This is nothing but an elaborate appeal to common sense fallacy.
If you can't demonstrate how it makes him not a good sceptic, you're just asserting it.
There's a difference between not betraying a friend, who's being wrongfully persecuted and covering for people who did something you know is wrong.

Good skeptics don't view authority something deserving respect simply due to their being authority, this goes beyond 'authority' as in scholarly authority.

Except that this not at all a case of sceptically not accepting my authority. They have no business taking other people's stuff, regardless of my authority and any respect thereof.

crank wrote: I thought that should be obvious. Not ratting another student out is normal behavior,

Again, it's completely irrelevant whether it's normal or expected behaviour.
Students need to learn how to behave, not just in the classroom, but as a member of society.
I can't expect that pupils never play with their phone in class, doesn't mean I won't address it and confiscate the phone if happens.
It's 'normal' behaviour for pupils to talk to each other during class, even during oral instruction by the teacher.
Doesn't change that it's unacceptable behaviour that needs to be corrected.
Just like it's not acceptable behaviour to take and hide other people's stuff, refuse to return and covering up for people who bully.
And again, if this student doesn't 'rat out' his fellow perps, he's the only one who I know is involved and the only one who will face the consequences.

crank wrote: it's not the same as covering for someone, it's not ratting them out. It's not all that subtle a distinction.

A crucial and ludicrous distinction. It might be expected behaviour among their peers, that doesn't mean it's acceptable. Nor will it help them when they'll be the only facing the consequences because they don't want to 'rat out' the others.

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote:
Saying a group bullied this kid, again, not in evidence.

Hence you won't find me asserting this is the case with this incidence.
Do try to address what I actually post and not straw-men.

Your words sounded like you had just about assumed it, your scenario spinning left little to no room for it being a harmless prank.

That's still a complete misrepresentation of my posts in this thread.
All I've said is that I wanted to be sure whether that scenario is happening or not.
Hence why I suggest to the year tutor to have a conversation about it with the student.

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote: You really must not remember what it's like being a kid,

I advise you not to make stuff up about your interlocutors, not only is it dishonest it hinders rational discussion.

What? I asserted an opinion, based on the observation that you expect kids to rat out another student in open class, I've made nothing up.

Yes, you have, as I've made it repeatedly clear that I do not expect them to rat each other out.
I said that they should say who was involved, not that they would/that I expected they would.

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote: ratting out someone just isn't going to happen, not unless you got a class full of busybody weasels.
Expecting it is not a sign of being a good teacher, it's a sign of a teacher with zero understanding of her students.

Your choice of words is quite telling. This has nothing to with grassing or weasels.
This has to do with unacceptable behaviour and teaching children not do this.
And again, I suggest you stuff your blind assertions about my understanding where the sun doesn't shine.

No, you're just wrong,

Counterfactual blind assertion based on repeated failure to address what I've actually posted.

crank wrote: you are expecting behavior from kids that aren't the way kids behave.

Still complete fiction, no matter how many times you blindly repeat it.

crank wrote:They don't give a shit what you expect of them here, they're going to view anyone ratting another student out as a weasel, a rat, whatever, and it;s likely to go very hard on them afterwards. If you don't see that, you're not being a good teacher, you're demanding behavior that isn't in the students' best interest.

Again, not what I posted at all.

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote:
I don't claim to know what's going on, not enough info..

And somehow that's not prevented you from making blind assertions about teaching capacities, knowledge of my pupils and other things.

crank wrote:
It could be an isolated incidence, a harmless prank, hiding someones books is not serious, friends routinely do much worse shit to their buddies. The 'victim's' clear distress could easily be a gross over-reaction, you don't know, at least you haven't given us a reason to think you do.

Equally I have no reason to assume it is an overreaction and the first priority is to ensure no-one feels unsafe in my class.

crank wrote: What is the relationship between the 'victim' and the perps? They could be good friends for all we know. A far better response by you would have been to tell the class no one is leaving until the books are returned, and if it happens again, serious consequences would follow..

You've just demonstrated again you haven't read my OP thoroughly, or my subsequent post as I've made it clear that's exactly what I did.

No, it isn't, you also demanded ratting out another student.

Yes I did. I did not expect him to, I told him that's what he should do, if he wanted to avoid being the only one facing the consequences.
I left the choice with him.
Whether I should expect it or not is immaterial, it's what he should do.
Again, whether I can expect students to play with their phone, or talk during instruction time is completely irrelevant to the fact that they should not do either and they have to be taught not do so.

crank wrote: You're getting loose with the details,

I've done no such thing. You are the one who has failed to read what I actually posted and/or misrepresented it.

crank wrote:keep misconstruing what I said.

That's really the pot calling the kettle black.

crank wrote: I've tried to caveat everything considering how little data was released.

And I've tried to explain why some of your responses were not corresponding with what I actually posted and others were flawed.

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Since no-one wanted to fess up, I told the entire class that I would not tolerate this kind of behaviour and that if the books were not returned before the end of class, the entire class would get detention.

I had to threaten detention as it was the middle of the day and the kids had different classes to get to.

crank wrote: Your scenario spinning with insufficient evidence did no one any good, leaving you to possibly making it out to be far more serious than it was.

I have to ask which thread you have been reading because this does not at all reflect what I've been posting here.

My remarks stand, you're not being honest with yourself if you don't think you've left virtually no room for the harmless prank case.

Blindly repeating the same baseless assertion won't magically make it true.
You have not demonstrated how I've done this.
I've repeatedly made it clear that I wanted to make sure whether it was an isolated incident or not and that if the culprits had bothered to observe the victim they'd quickly noticed that their 'prank' was anything but harmless.

crank wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
crank wrote:I bet you haven't even tried perusing the kids social media have you? You don't have a clue what's going on, don't make it into WWIII, figure out what's happening without making the 'perp' into a terrorist, and try real hard to remember what it's like being a kid in school.

Nope, you clearly haven't read my posts in this thread. :picard:

You can facepalm all you want, it's a non sequitur,

It's not, it's an expression of exasperation at your continued failure to address what I actually posted.

crank wrote:I have read all of your posts now and there's no reason to change anything I've said.

No reasons, other than presenting evidence for your assertions, addressing my corrections of your misrepresentations.
But if you don't care about that, that's fine, but then I'm done engaging on this thread with you.

crank wrote:Have you checked out the social media of kids in the school?

I've left it in the hands of their year tutor, which you'd know if you'd read the thread. He's going to talk with the people involved and based on the result, we're going to see if we need to investigate further or take other steps.

crank wrote: that would be really helpful if you suspected there to be a pattern of bullying.

This question has already been resolved.

crank wrote: By continuing to insist that students should rat out other students, especially in class, you clearly forgot, don't understand, what it's like to be a teenager in school.

Once again making shit up that I haven't expressed.
I told the student to tell me who else was involved, at no point did I demand he do so in class.
I said that until he told me one way or the other, he'd be the only we knew was involved and therefore the only one who would face the consequences.
And for the final time, I don't expect him to do anything.
I've made it clear what he should do. What's the right the behaviour.
Covering up for people who've broken the rules is not helpful for either the student or the victim and won't be good behaviour in society either.
If they graduate and some friend gives them stolen goods, not telling their friend was involved won't help them one bit and will only result in them getting punished in their friends stead.

crank wrote: If the kid was telling the truth, that he's not being systematically bullied, then this was highly likely a harmless prank.

A complete non-sequitur based on a false dichotomy.
It might not be systematic bullying, it still made the victim visibly upset, as I made clear in the OP. So even if it was intended as a prank, it was anything but harmless. More-over taken other students stuff is simply unacceptable behaviour, both because it might affect the pupil and it tends to disrupt the class/lesson.

crank wrote:
Maybe I'm biased, in the US, there are usually much much worse shit to get upset about in schools, maybe the schools where you are do so well that something this minor is worthy of so serious a reaction.

This is a fallacy of relative privation.