Posts
OMG, why are such crass material contents discussed in a straight-laced academic forum? I would appropriately find these in Temasek Review or Stomper? Not to worry, I have nothing against such material here, was only trying to make it a big deal, but maybe Brad has other thoughts!
Having said that, I am completely bewildered Eunice doesn't know the answers to her own questions in the above post she made. For why else would anybody ask a question if the intend isn't almost always to get a straight answer?
"Imagine an 8 year old watching this video, will this teach them good values?"
Oh mine, you couldn't say you didn't know the answer to this question do you, Eunice? Even if you already knew the answer and posted the question just to enquire about our views, you couldn't have thought that we as intellectuals didn't already know the answer, or has an answer completely different from yours, right? (Presuming your view is that the video doesnt teach 8 yr olds good values). I thought you couldnt have been serious to ask the obvious, unless you were expecting something drastically different from that, but I do not think anybody here thinks the video teaches good values to 8 yr olds; which then brings me back to what puzzles me: Where are you getting at with your question!
Or perhaps it is really the case where you knew the video doesn't teach good values to 8 yr olds, but wanted to know how it is the case, and therefore approached us with this question of yours. That----would make a whole lot of better sense, or don't you think so? If thats the case, then I'll proffer my view.
Profanities and expletives used in the video tend to give off some form of bad vibe, not so much any actual wrong value, for would you agree that the video (or any other profanity-laden one) could have professed some noble value such as familial love or patriotism (these are only examples, not sure if the video above has these because I haven't seen the video and don't intend to)? So if there are ultimately good values taught in the video, you could say the video above does teach good values. The answer to Eunice's question would be a resounding YEAH!
However, I'm sure the fundamental spirit of Eunice's question is quite a bit different than what she mistakenly wrote, or so I think she has might/mightn't have done so. For as I said above, the profanities and vulgarities aren't the value/virtue per se, they are more like the vibe. On that basis, and if you subscribe to my argument, you have to now think that the video not only teaches good values BUT it ironically used the wrong means----profanities and expletives, to teach those values, or can anybody see it is the case? The video may have an altruistic message only it was couched in lewd egoism which then prevents the message from being revealed to a cognitively underdeveloped 8 yr old, thereby destroying the whole point of the video if it is to bring about edification through some value it professes. Hence, you couldn't say the child learned any value or un-value, because they have been stupendously masked by painfully obtuse language. The only thing the child has been taught concerns the use of language which possesses no value in and of itself if not allied to some more entrenched morality or otherwise, or don't anybody think so?
The answer to Eunice's question is not really a straight answer, as a result. Rather the answer extends from Eunice's question with the answer that rather than the child being taught good values, he has been brain-washed with bad language! He hasnt been taught anything because he couldnt read any values from the video, and values are the only thing that can be taught. Teaching the boy how to ride a horse is really about teaching him some sort of value, or wouldn't you say so? This works for any kind of learning, wouldn't you say so again? Yet I forsee people may argue that since you can teach language, it follows I should have classified language as a value--- that is true. However, the boy isn't PROPERLY learning bad language the way he would learn French or Spanish in his 2nd grade elementary class, isn't it? And that the reason bad language isnt officially taught in his school is because it has been filtered by society as junk or lacking in value, or wouldnt you say the same? So since these 2 above criterias for a value-add language are not fulfilled, bad language cannot be classified as value or un-value, which reiterates my point above that the boy couldnt have been taught bad language through the video. He could only have been brain-washed or severely violated. The profane words didn't got voluntarily 'sucked' in by him, for no mentally sound 8 yr old kid can rationally do that; instead, the words hedged him in.
Those are your probable answers above I suppose, or wouldn't you agree?
Finally, and a point I postponed until now; bad language used to teach some value (something that has value (fundamental) must only be good) abruptly undermines both the efficacy of the medium of instruction as well as the value itself. That is why the boy couldnt have learnt a single value if there is one in the video. Unless value (fundamental) can incorporate something perverse, then if bad language is used to teach that value, the boy could likely master it. For instance supposing stealing is a 'value' (non-fundamental), and a badass comes along and spouts profanities as a means to school the boy in stealing, the boy will likely learn the pickpocketing trade in no time. But if you would asked whether good langauge has any effect on bad values taught, the answer is negative. That is the only combination of language/value that does not undermine both the medium of instruction and the value being taught itself.
Also there might be a chance you would think the boy couldnt be brain-washed or infiltrated with those profane words simply because he is too young to know they are profane words, and many people think that should be the case. But that is hardly so. Conversely, he is too young to not admit those profane words, precisely because having less developed hard-wire in his brain, the only lesson he brings away is one in pyrotechnical verbose garbage, or dont you think it so too?
I call my case hereby.
2 Tosses
Having said that, I am completely bewildered Eunice doesn't know the answers to her own questions in the above post she made. For why else would anybody ask a question if the intend isn't almost always to get a straight answer?
"Imagine an 8 year old watching this video, will this teach them good values?"
Oh mine, you couldn't say you didn't know the answer to this question do you, Eunice? Even if you already knew the answer and posted the question just to enquire about our views, you couldn't have thought that we as intellectuals didn't already know the answer, or has an answer completely different from yours, right? (Presuming your view is that the video doesnt teach 8 yr olds good values). I thought you couldnt have been serious to ask the obvious, unless you were expecting something drastically different from that, but I do not think anybody here thinks the video teaches good values to 8 yr olds; which then brings me back to what puzzles me: Where are you getting at with your question!
Or perhaps it is really the case where you knew the video doesn't teach good values to 8 yr olds, but wanted to know how it is the case, and therefore approached us with this question of yours. That----would make a whole lot of better sense, or don't you think so? If thats the case, then I'll proffer my view.
Profanities and expletives used in the video tend to give off some form of bad vibe, not so much any actual wrong value, for would you agree that the video (or any other profanity-laden one) could have professed some noble value such as familial love or patriotism (these are only examples, not sure if the video above has these because I haven't seen the video and don't intend to)? So if there are ultimately good values taught in the video, you could say the video above does teach good values. The answer to Eunice's question would be a resounding YEAH!
However, I'm sure the fundamental spirit of Eunice's question is quite a bit different than what she mistakenly wrote, or so I think she has might/mightn't have done so. For as I said above, the profanities and vulgarities aren't the value/virtue per se, they are more like the vibe. On that basis, and if you subscribe to my argument, you have to now think that the video not only teaches good values BUT it ironically used the wrong means----profanities and expletives, to teach those values, or can anybody see it is the case? The video may have an altruistic message only it was couched in lewd egoism which then prevents the message from being revealed to a cognitively underdeveloped 8 yr old, thereby destroying the whole point of the video if it is to bring about edification through some value it professes. Hence, you couldn't say the child learned any value or un-value, because they have been stupendously masked by painfully obtuse language. The only thing the child has been taught concerns the use of language which possesses no value in and of itself if not allied to some more entrenched morality or otherwise, or don't anybody think so?
The answer to Eunice's question is not really a straight answer, as a result. Rather the answer extends from Eunice's question with the answer that rather than the child being taught good values, he has been brain-washed with bad language! He hasnt been taught anything because he couldnt read any values from the video, and values are the only thing that can be taught. Teaching the boy how to ride a horse is really about teaching him some sort of value, or wouldn't you say so? This works for any kind of learning, wouldn't you say so again? Yet I forsee people may argue that since you can teach language, it follows I should have classified language as a value--- that is true. However, the boy isn't PROPERLY learning bad language the way he would learn French or Spanish in his 2nd grade elementary class, isn't it? And that the reason bad language isnt officially taught in his school is because it has been filtered by society as junk or lacking in value, or wouldnt you say the same? So since these 2 above criterias for a value-add language are not fulfilled, bad language cannot be classified as value or un-value, which reiterates my point above that the boy couldnt have been taught bad language through the video. He could only have been brain-washed or severely violated. The profane words didn't got voluntarily 'sucked' in by him, for no mentally sound 8 yr old kid can rationally do that; instead, the words hedged him in.
Those are your probable answers above I suppose, or wouldn't you agree?
Finally, and a point I postponed until now; bad language used to teach some value (something that has value (fundamental) must only be good) abruptly undermines both the efficacy of the medium of instruction as well as the value itself. That is why the boy couldnt have learnt a single value if there is one in the video. Unless value (fundamental) can incorporate something perverse, then if bad language is used to teach that value, the boy could likely master it. For instance supposing stealing is a 'value' (non-fundamental), and a badass comes along and spouts profanities as a means to school the boy in stealing, the boy will likely learn the pickpocketing trade in no time. But if you would asked whether good langauge has any effect on bad values taught, the answer is negative. That is the only combination of language/value that does not undermine both the medium of instruction and the value being taught itself.
Also there might be a chance you would think the boy couldnt be brain-washed or infiltrated with those profane words simply because he is too young to know they are profane words, and many people think that should be the case. But that is hardly so. Conversely, he is too young to not admit those profane words, precisely because having less developed hard-wire in his brain, the only lesson he brings away is one in pyrotechnical verbose garbage, or dont you think it so too?
I call my case hereby.
2 Tosses
No comments:
Post a Comment