Please do.
I didn’t say you did but now that you mention it…
Our actions should be judged not on right or wrong but also how it could be interpreted?
I dunno, my kids have hurt thmeslves in ways I never thought imaginable. Of course, they’ve survived it all. I wasn’t thinking like a kid could die, just be scared. It was just stupid to do at school. Teachers are supposed to be teaching. Not playing with tape.
(BTW, I consider this an argument for homeschooling. Not because some evil teacher might -gasp - put masking tape on your kid, but because at home YOU can do it and have the fun and not have to worry about losing control of the class and someone getting hurt as a result and/or worry about a school administration firing you over a game.)
Once upon a time I used to substitute teach. It is rather shocking that anyone with a bachelor’s degree and lack of criminal record can be a substitute teacher. When I signed up for subbing, I was looking for another job and since I could easily turn down substitute assignments for interviews, it worked out rather well.
It is a thankless job for which you receive zero training. You fill out some paperwork (get fingerprinted in some states) and bam you are a substitute teacher. My first assignment: gym for 7th graders with severe emotional problems. AND THE GYM TEACHER CHOOSES DODGE BALL! Nothing like getting a bunch of emotionally challenged children and telling them to bash each other. Talk about your trial by fire.
It is obvious that telling children to tape their mouths shut was in poor judgment, but not abusive. I remember as a kid experimenting with masking tape and doing the exact same thing. Of course the fun part was seeing if you could move your mouth regardless of the tape.
It appears that the school system and select parents are poised to wham on this teacher harshly for the “abuse” inflicted. Which is a shame because as a substitute teacher she can expect zero help from the teacher’s union, or any other source. Which means she stands alone (like people who make substitute salaries can afford defense attorneys).
So people watch how the system performs their little witch hunt on the substitute teacher, and think to themselves: It will be a cold day in Hell before you see me doing that kind of thankless job! I would rather flip burgers!
Yes I don’t think she should be teaching children. No I don’t think the matter should be pressed any further than removing her from her position.
I think it’s really wrong that they fired the teacher without any investigation into the matter. Even a cop gets put on review when he discharges his weapon, but not fired immediately.
I don’t understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.
Se shouldn’t have done it, because people thought (wrongly) that she was abusing the kids.
She shouldn’t have done it, because there have been reports in the past, in the same city, of teachers being investigated for using tape on students. It’s a sensitive issue.
She shouldn’t have done it, because it caused her to lose her job.
None of these statements is equivalent to “She shouldn’t have done it because it was bad, or hurt the kids.”
Whether a thing is right or wrong, good or bad, is not always the most important consideration.
Some examples…
-It may be very right and proper, and satisfying, to tell an obnoxious customer to fuck off. But if you want to keep your job, you don’t do it. You restrain yourself.
-I think pot should be legal. I think it’s not only ridiculous, but actually morally wrong that it’s illegal. But I’d be a complete moron if I lit up a joint in front of a cop just because I think there’s nothing wrong with it.
It’s called living in the real world. (But hey, that must be some good acid you’re on…wanna share?)
No, that’s not right. One does not use obnoxious behavior to justify obnoxious behavior. A simple, “That will be $1.98 please” would suffice.
We were discussing right and wrong not legal and illegal.
No it’s called acting not by any moral compass but by what other people think. The ultimate outcome of such a rule is that one may never do anything that anyone under any circumstances could ever possibly construe differently.
No, we’re discussing the fact that actions have consequences.
Now you’re getting it. A prudent person takes what other people will think into account. Particularly when those people have power over your livelihood. (Such as employers, or employer’s client—parents, in this case.) It’s not the only consideration, but it is a consideration.
Whatever. I’m talking real world here, not “reductio ad absurdum world”.
The consequence of what other people think or could possibly think should have no bearing on what is right or wrong. If so then actions no longer become right or wrong but popular or unpopular. To call an action wrong simply because someone might interpret it as wrong is, well, wrong.
I agree. Never said it should.
The concepts are not mutually exclusive. An action can be (assuming we can actually quantify or agree on what is right and wrong) either right/popular, right/unpopular, wrong/popular, or wrong/unpopular. But I digress…
I agree. Which is why I didn’t do that. I didn’t say it was wrong (quite the opposite—I said it was a harmless game). What I did say was that it was a bad idea. There’s a difference.
Sometimes teachers threaten to tape kids’ mouthes shut. Of course, sometimes the kis says “please do.” I think the appropriate action is for the teacher to hand the kid a piece of tape and tell them to have fun.
Mr. A drops his wallet and Mr. B picks it up to hand it to A but before he can Mr. C sees B with the wallet and yells, “Thief!”
Did Mr. B do the right thing. Yes.
Was it a bad idea? According to you, yes, if I apply your criteria correctly. Mr. B should of thought of how other’s might interpret his actions.
Mr. A drops his wallet and Mr B, taking into account what others might think, walks on without doing anything.
Did Mr. B do the right thing. No.
Was it a good idea? According to you, yes, because he took into account what others might think.
Now it was not the best idea because he could of yelled, “You dropped your wallet.” But according to your criteria not doing right is still a good idea.
mblackwell, my post was a reply to Ferrous not to you.
It seems the difference between you and me, AcidKid, is that you see in black and white, while I’m capable of perceiving shades of grey.
When I make a general statement of principle, I don’t expect it to apply in every single imaginable situation.
The problem with your example is that it is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. In our real world example, a reasonable person could foresee problems arising from the sub’s action. There’s no reason your Mr. B, being a reasonable person, acquainted with the way people behave in real life, would expect someone to cry “Thief!” simply by seeing him pick up a dropped wallet.
Even if our hypothetical Mr. C is actually that stupid, he has no actual power over Mr B. Mr. B is not going to be arrested on Mr. C’s hysterical word alone. He can easily explain himself to A—“Here you go. You dropped this.”
In your stupid hypothetical, the consequences of misunderstanding are very small compared to the moral imperative to do the right thing. In our real world example, the consequences of misunderstanding are quite high (loss of job). Is that worth the trivial, temporary annoyance of some kids being told they can’t play with tape? I suspect the teacher, in hindsight, would say it is.
Bah. I’m sick of talking to you about this. You’re either being deliberately obtuse, or you’re a moron. Keep bashing at those strawmen, if it makes you happy. The real world will still be here, if you should care to join it.
:smack: Of course, that should have read “…it isn’t.”
Or something. Actually, now that I look at it, that’s a pretty badly constructed paragraph. Never mind. I think everyone who’s not under the influence of hallucinogenics knows what I mean.
Not only is subbing thankless and trainingless, it is an extremely poorly-paid position. I get $75 a full day. I would get $50, but I have a teaching license. Half days I get $37.50. You’re not paid enough to care. (I do care, but that’s mainly because I’m trying to get a permanent teaching position, possibly in the county I’m currently subbing in [but hopefully I’ll get a job in another, more rural county.])
THERE’S the outrage, people!
This happened to one of the few elementary schools in Lawrence
that I didn’t go to…
The thing I find troubling is that the teacher has apparently changed her story. On Friday night she was spoken to by reporters and her defense was not " the kids wanted to do it." No, it was " I only taped a few kids mouths shut, not 20." She’s gone from claiming that what she did wasn’t so bad, to claiming that it wasn’t her at all. hmmmm.
The teacher may not have changed her story, remember, we’re hearing this through a lot of media filters.
How was this teacher supposed to know it was a bad idea. You say it was a bad idea but not wrong. You say one must consider how other people interpert our actions. How was this teacher going to determine what others would think about allowing students to play with mask tape?