On 2005-10-09 16:20:00, Anonymous wrote:
"That post hoc fallacy is a two edged sword, you know. You point out how "programmies" falsely think that because they/their children are doing well post-CEDU, that it must be because CEDU helped them.
Well I think it is an overwhelming theme around here for people whose lives are not as stellar as they had hoped, or who are fucked up in the head, to employ that exact same fallacy and say that it is because of CEDU.
The difference is that CEDU, and places like it have been independently shown to hurt, not help, emotional and psychological development of children. Therefore it is not a fallacy to assert that it did indeed cause lingering damage to some of these folks.
In addition, my experience with people here is that the vast majority say "CEDU (or other EG program) really hurt me and caused a lot of problems for me, but I've overcome that to be a good person and lead a good life." I agree that some of the more obstreperous posters that blame current problems on experiences from decades ago need to examine other aspects of their lives that may account for some of their "shortcomings."
No one is going to get anywhere around here arguing so deafly to one another. There is no debating on these forums...just a bunch of anti-CEDU kids and adults alike with their views solidly in place bashing on a bunch of kids and adults who saw the programs as beneficial. No one accepts each others arguments, and weightless, hypocritical comments are being flung back and forth from both sides.
I agree with this to a point, but if you examine these threads closely you will see that the "program supporters" are usually the most most viscious ad hominem attackers and usually "empty both barrels" first.
It seems to me that the very people who claim to have benefitted from programs are the ones who show the most serious social/psychological maladaption and often attempt to victimize people who have been legitimately damaged by programs. Coincidentally, re-victimizing children is a big part of "program philosophy."
It is also no surprise that the programs turn out rigid, dogmatic automaton "graduates" that are undying sycophants drilled to defend the program by attacking its detractors. I've witnessed this training first-hand.
Where do you think 15 year old kids develop talking points like "Without the program, I'd be dead, in jail or insane," or "You didn't embrace the program's virtues because you are a weak, sick individual"?
Doesn't anyone have something real to debate about?"
This subject is very real. Although there is often not much "meaningful debate" on the surface, it is the jewels to be plucked from the stories of those who have experience with CEDU and other programs that merit reading these threads. I often find very interesting academic discussion lying beneath the surface of the rancor. It takes a trained eye and some critical thought, but it is, I assure you, there for any thinking person to see.
