Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Hyde Schools
gauld admits hyde is a fraud and quits
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""gary eskow"" ---Forgive me for disagreeing, but I have a different take on this speech. Although he is unable to think out of the context of inflated self-importance (and of course, its flip side, despair) and thus is completely incapable of true irony, I have no doubt that Joe is sincere in his desire to be of service.
In my judgment, there's nothing wrong with these remarks, though, or course, they are hardly earth shaking or deeply insightful.
Just my take.
GE
--- End quote ---
What do you disagree with? The point you made has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is that there is an implicit arrogance in the notion of BK. And that Hyde is built on that social stratification. It a system that can be gamed, creates arbitrary winners and loses and thus is no different that the system that it proports to be better than. To quote "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
--- End quote ---
I agree about the stratification. Gauld has harnessed the natural energy of all nasty little high school cliques and subsumed them under just two monolithic pro- and anti-Hyde groups. And, you've got to give the devil his due, he was shrewd enough to do away with the usual high school setup of students versus adults and instead create a you versus all setup. That's the beauty of brother's keeper. Opposition is crushed by peers as well as by administration. But I disagree that the game creates arbitrary winners and losers; it creates arbitrary rules. If you play by them, you'll win. If not, or if you try to change them, or even if you ask why the hell am I playing, you'll lose.
--- End quote ---
Since the rules are themselves are arbitrary the bifurcation thus created is arbitrary. There is no way to say group A is good, group B is bad, since we clearly have evidence of those in group A who fake the requirements to be in group A. Also we have evident of members of group B that have the characteristics that group A supposes to represent, Since the system proports to differentiate based on an absolute value system, but clearly fails at least in some cases it is arbitrary. Similar result could occur from a random process like a coin toss.
Q.E.D
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""Guest"" ---
--- Quote from: ""gary eskow"" ---Forgive me for disagreeing, but I have a different take on this speech. Although he is unable to think out of the context of inflated self-importance (and of course, its flip side, despair) and thus is completely incapable of true irony, I have no doubt that Joe is sincere in his desire to be of service.
In my judgment, there's nothing wrong with these remarks, though, or course, they are hardly earth shaking or deeply insightful.
Just my take.
GE
--- End quote ---
What do you disagree with? The point you made has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is that there is an implicit arrogance in the notion of BK. And that Hyde is built on that social stratification. It a system that can be gamed, creates arbitrary winners and loses and thus is no different that the system that it proports to be better than. To quote "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
--- End quote ---
I agree about the stratification. Gauld has harnessed the natural energy of all nasty little high school cliques and subsumed them under just two monolithic pro- and anti-Hyde groups. And, you've got to give the devil his due, he was shrewd enough to do away with the usual high school setup of students versus adults and instead create a you versus all setup. That's the beauty of brother's keeper. Opposition is crushed by peers as well as by administration. But I disagree that the game creates arbitrary winners and losers; it creates arbitrary rules. If you play by them, you'll win. If not, or if you try to change them, or even if you ask why the hell am I playing, you'll lose.
--- End quote ---
Since the rules are themselves are arbitrary the bifurcation thus created is arbitrary. There is no way to say group A is good, group B is bad, since we clearly have evidence of those in group A who fake the requirements to be in group A. Also we have evident of members of group B that have the characteristics that group A supposes to represent, Since the system proports to differentiate based on an absolute value system, but clearly fails at least in some cases it is arbitrary. Similar result could occur from a random process like a coin toss.
Q.E.D
--- End quote ---
Q.E.D. my eye. You are using the terms "winner" and "loser" indiscriminately in two very different senses, namely, winner and loser as defined by Hyde and winner and loser as defined by the world at large. I maintain that if you play the Hyde game you will win big time at Hyde and there is indeed a payoff: peace, praise, power, Paris, Hyde diploma, and more. The fact that outside of Hyde the term "winner" may be synonymous with "loser" (hypocrite, Nazi, dog turd, etc.) is incontrovertible but does not detract from the fact that a payoff can be had by playing the game at Hyde.
gary eskow:
"What do you disagree with? The point you made has nothing to do with what I said."
Hard to know who you are, and therefore what you said, since, like many "guests" you seem to have a problem identifying yourself to the community.
Sharp elbows are ok, but since we're all on the same side- trying to discover the truth about human nature, and how best to help kids in crises and their families- tact might also be worth considering.
GE
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---Q.E.D. my eye. You are using the terms "winner" and "loser" indiscriminately
--- End quote ---
I am not using the term indiscriminately. I am however referring implicitly to the definition of the terms in the Hyde sense.
Winner = Hyde graduate
Loser = {drop out, runaway, banished, walked with a certificate}
I am evaluating the system on the terms of the system. The system claims to differentiate based on "Character" To prove that this does not happen and assignment is random or arbitrary, I need only to show that the system fails and the same result could occur via another process. I have done this.
I do not accept the Hyde definitions, in fact by proving my chain of reasoning, I render those definitions without value. BTW "my eye" is not a valid argument.
Anonymous:
--- Quote from: ""gary eskow"" ---"What do you disagree with? The point you made has nothing to do with what I said."
Hard to know who you are, and therefore what you said, since, like many "guests" you seem to have a problem identifying yourself to the community.
Sharp elbows are ok, but since we're all on the same side- trying to discover the truth about human nature, and how best to help kids in crises and their families- tact might also be worth considering.
GE
--- End quote ---
Hey just a little good natured dialectic. This is the kind of talk you can't get at Hyde. I suppose I could get an account but I am not a joiner or a bricklayer.
Emil Nightrate
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version