Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Admin: ad hominem warning (Brad) [Re: [wc] Toddler's are racist. Go get 'em, Pet

Expand Messages
  • zooey_stockholm
    ... I actually suspect that there s something wrong with your reading comprehension. If anyone here has been trying to discuss racism without too many moral
    Message 1 of 138 , Jul 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Martin" <bradmartin@...>
      > Politically correct ideology is a human mindset. Peter S. gives more
      > than sufficient evidence of that mindset. My comment is not about his
      > personality, it is about his worldview. His obsession with the issue of
      > racism goes beyond academic objectivity, but certainly fits with
      > ideological extremism in academia today, which has become the bane of
      > higher education in the US. However, it feeds into the WC Bash Steiner
      > Vendetta, and therefore Peter S. is not only tolerated, but given
      > credibility.

      I actually suspect that there's something wrong with your reading
      comprehension. If anyone here has been trying to discuss racism
      without too many moral overtones, it's Peter.

      But another point I think you have to understand is that people can be
      objective academically, that does not mean they are neutral about a
      subject as human beings. People who study genocide rarely, if ever,
      think killing is just as good as not killing. If you ask for something
      like that, under the pretense that it would be the "neutral"
      standpoint, you're arguing for a position that neither academic, nor
      non-academic, discourse requires.

      > Steiner, among many over the millenia, speculated on many fields of
      > knowledge, including human differences around the globe over time. Are
      > there differences among human groupings? Of course. Taking a handful of
      > Steiner's speculations, most often misunderstood in the larger context,
      > and using them to condemn the whole, is the common tactic here on WC.

      Well, that's odd. Perhaps you should read a bit more Steiner? How
      would you explain that whole books of his, rather than single
      speculations, are remarkably disgusting?

      > The broad field of transpersonal psychology, a development on
      > psychology, without limits, in the 20th century, is about the human
      > trait of love. Rudolph Steiner identified anthroposophy as one version
      > of that reality.
      > http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/LovWld_index.html

      I'm sorry Brad, but mumbo-jumbo like this has nothing to do with
      psychology. Maybe you should read up on some *real* psychology,
      psychological thinking founded on research.

      > The anthroposophy of Rudolf Steiner is one part of the larger whole of
      > the leading edge of this all encompassing human psychology.

      NO!! It is most definately NOT!

      > This listserve has lost credibility, yet the faithful carry on,
      > ignoring legitimate contextual evidence.


    • zooey
      Well, then, if that s the case, the PUBLIC should be discouraged from choosing a waldorf school at all. That s it. You don t go about lying about
      Message 138 of 138 , Aug 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, then, if that's the case, the PUBLIC should be discouraged from choosing a waldorf school at all. That's it. You don't go about lying about anthroposophy's place in the school under the pretext that it's too complicated for parents to understand. Either they understand, or waldorf isn't the choice for them. There are no other options. You don't send your kid to a catholic school without having the first clue about catholicism.

        Besides, I really find that whole attitude shockingly arrogant. What makes you think that anthroposophists have such superior intellectual faculties that they can understand what ordinary waldorf parents can't? I think that whole notion is completely mistaken. Waldorf parents are quite often fairly well-educated, and often more capable than the anthroposophists and waldorf teachers. I can assure you that people like my parents are clever enough to understand anthroposophy well enough to know it is not for them--the problem is, parents are told anthroposophy won't be in the school. Many parents of waldorf students are highly qualified to grasp stuff--and if I'm allowed to make a general observation based on my own experience, the kids with very educated parents got out of waldorf with varying speeds, kids with anthro parents or uneducated parents got stuck. Because, even if they aren't told, parents will catch on sooner or later, the more they know about
        the world in general, the sooner!


        --- On Mon, 4/8/08, taiannah <riversongs@...> wrote:

        I doubt that the PUBLIC is truly capable of understanding very much

        at all. I would consider the endeavor what ever it was an absolute

        waste of time. Which is probably why there is no anthroposophical

        discussion here at all.

        Not happy with your email address?.
        Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.