[UPDATED] Those who know me know that the subject of Education for Citizenship and the similarly named me like anything. In part by arguments quite echoed by many, partly because of other much less used. Do not go into the substantive discussion because this is not the subject of this blog, but in my opinion is an open door at school ideologically minority groups so that they can transform the grant money (and increase) proselytes .
I've ever said this Education Citizenship is unlike anything that exists in other European countries I know, and indeed the methods and arguments that the Ministry has used to discredit the citizens' movement that has positioned itself to have been awarded Citizenship Suspense Europe. Years ago I published this question, taken from the evaluation of citizen competence that is customary in Europe:
3. An adult is a good citizen if (put a grade on a scale from very important and not important): a) Work hard. b) would participate in a peaceful protest against a law they consider unjust.
I think it is clear that the opinion (or treatment) Ministry of the opponents to this subject (I think make the case or to seek remedies can be considered peaceful protest) is not "good citizens." Remarked, for which he has not read well, that consideration of "unfair" is not the government or you or the man who was passing by, but of citizen protest. It is a question of whether one agrees with it or not: if it considers that a law is unjust, the good citizen is the protester, and bad citizens is not. Point.
disqualifies Another concern for the subject as designed in Spain is the analysis of the arguments from the administration has put forward to defend it. But the maximum stupidity I have read in this which publishes news blurred The country today (out of focus because it takes the owner a false statement, since what is demanded is a "preference" and not "monopoly" and makes it mushy). What says the State Attorney in his appeal is as follows:
"The philosophical concept which presupposes democracy is relativism."
Again, if you have not read that right:
"The philosophical concept presupposes democracy is relativism."
Thus, quoting, appears in the newspaper (the pdf refers the news is not so, but a picture of the first page of the resource ) and, unless it is a joke, a quote of the appeal by counsel for the State.
Maybe I'm a little cranky, but only the indignation I feel at such barbarity has gotten me out of work (lately I have no time for anything) and taking the time to blog. Because relativism is not the ideological conception of democracy, but of the dictatorship. No need to read Thucydides and Aristotle to know-or, more recently, Orwell, only textbook Philosophy History or 3 of BUP, which is assumed necessary to get a lawyer State, and not to minister.
tyrants are those who think that life and freedom (those of others, of course) are relative compared to their ideological agenda, and are precisely the democracies that write things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , library where there is absolute. Therefore, all items begin with the word "all" (or "no"), except the last one that begins with "nothing."
And some will applaud this resource with your ears. Will be to cover with nothing between them.
[UPDATE] Read the full appeal (to do things quickly, I realized I could, as I have been told politely thank you), I might add some things: the phrase is played Kelsen, a well known and renowned defender of positivism. I still say the same of that sentence. resource I find it curious that the first part warned of the danger of relativizing the law and the State (pp. 5 and 7), reaching to say that the individual's ability to relativize the law threatens the democratic state and then claiming that relativism is the basis of democracy.
I'm not used to reading resources, but I was struck by the accumulation of
fallacies in this, probably common among the middling little lawyer, but one would expect absent in an action of law of the State. Regulars are those of the false experience and the argumentum ad consequentiam in the overall argument. I find it also curious that justify the goodness of the decrees in question based on the LOE said claim and not what actually does. I also see a logical contradiction in justifying the relativism with an argument of authority. And the argument that do not have the slightest Trileros seems to me, although I can be wrong.
The phrase on which the action is that of Kelsen, but the next, he had not seen:
"The dignity and the inviolable rights of the person-is Clearly, they are not objects of sense experience but generally shared beliefs for which postulates a moral foundation "(p. 18).With this budget, which put then not too surprising: the false opposition between the general moral defending those with religious beliefs and have-nots is also a fallacy: you can defend a general moral from different points of view without resorting to religious beliefs and without recourse to this man quoted in the application (deontological cognotivista , emotivist), moral all very short range and they can not prove the rule of law.
The foundation of our rule of law is the axiom, no the simple belief that man is an absolute, and if to justify Citizenship Education have to skip that question, because you've already said everything.
0 comments:
Post a Comment