Is HexHammer as good as he thinks he is?

[HexHammer]

Your post is proof of you not comprehending the nature of proof, you think it only lies in the process of spewing beautiful words and fancy rhetoric.

Nope, you make assertions that you do not back up with evidence, do this and I'll take you seriously rather than just yet another cozy-chatter spewing nonsense and babble.

You dismiss intelligent reasoning for stupidity.

Never done this, hence when you speak intelligently I treat it as such and many a time agree with you. That this is rare with you is a given.

Your socalled "evidense" is taking things at face value, you don't question anything about it, I just did further up, making an intelligent assertion that you did not comprehend.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Is it also the 25/12 over there? Funny as its 3/12 over here.

What matters more, the date it's celebrated, or that people come together and celebrate the better attributes of humanity?

[Arising_uk]

Your socalled "evidense" is taking things at face value, you don't question anything about it, I just did further up, making an intelligent assertion that you did not comprehend.

I understood your point but it did not detract in any way from the facts. You talk much about relevance but when faced with evidence from a reputable and unbiased source you seek ways around it when it does not fit your preconceptions. Preconceptions I might add based upon no knowledge or experience of the subject you talk about.

I'm still waiting for the link to this US Marine and his violins? Not that I think music studies could not improve failing students nor that with the right motivational teacher and the chance to succeed at something most students will improve.

[Arising_uk]

... So I guess it's fair to say that December is Christmas.

PhilX

I think a fairer guess is that Christmas is in December.

[Arising_uk]

GOD!! You atheists are no fun at all!

I'm not the one who apparently can't say Merry Christmas, even if it is way to early. This is why I wondered what holidays you were talking about.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The "flimsy hammer, made of rubber" never has anything other than his 'opinion' to share, he never has, so called, proof, that supports his opinions. As such, seemingly, he just comes here to 'try' and bolster his ego, and it seems that even he doesn't believe his lackluster diatribe, because he often sounds like a broken record, as if he's still trying desperately to convince himself, that such banal ideas could be true. I do feel quite sorry for the lad, that attempts to build bridges, that he professes are so optimally strong, because he was the engineer, when in fact they are seemingly made of pop-sickle sticks and paper-mâché paste. Or at least surely his conveyance seems to indicate.

Hexy baby, you DESPERATELY need to EXPOUND if you ever want anyone here to take you seriously!!!

Happy Holidays, Hexy, if you don't celebrate them or know what I'm talking about, I still ultimately wish you well!

[HexHammer]

There's many touch stories about how students are inspired to do beyond and above their expectations, no philosophy involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Debaters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ron_Clark_Story

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Sir,_with_Love

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_on_Me_(film)

..sorry couldn't find the violin movie, can't even remember if it was made into a movie, happend like in the 70's 80's, so..

[Arising_uk]

None of which alters the fact that philosophical training in our schools over here has improved the kids performances in their other subjects. Which is the fact that you wish to deny.

Nowhere have I said that other methods can't work as well, although I note that all your examples involve dedicated individuals whereas here it just involves teachers doing the job.

[Walker]

The "flimsy hammer, made of rubber" never has anything other than his 'opinion' to share, he never has, so called, proof, that supports his opinions. As such, seemingly, he just comes here to 'try' and bolster his ego, and it seems that even he doesn't believe his lackluster diatribe, because he often sounds like a broken record, as if he's still trying desperately to convince himself, that such banal ideas could be true. I do feel quite sorry for the lad, that attempts to build bridges, that he professes are so optimally strong, because he was the engineer, when in fact they are seemingly made of pop-sickle sticks and paper-mâché paste. Or at least surely his conveyance seems to indicate.

With comic genius as the measure I think Hex is better than possibly he knows. Dry situational humor. Steve Martin majored in philosophy and is/was a performance-artist philosopher. Hex knows that all of life is performance-philosophy, awake or asleep.

[HexHammer]

None of which alters the fact that philosophical training in our schools over here has improved the kids performances in their other subjects. Which is the fact that you wish to deny.

Nowhere have I said that other methods can't work as well, although I note that all your examples involve dedicated individuals whereas here it just involves teachers doing the job.

1) yes ofc I deny it, because you haven't proved it, it only says philosophy has made a class top students, but doesn't specifically state why and how.

2) as I wrote earlier, it may have been because the teachers boosted their self confidence, motivated them and inspired them, so it would not be due to the philosophy in itself, but to the teachers.

3) when you say "here it just involves teachers doing the job", that's what other teachers are doing and they make top students, classes and schools make top grades WITHOUT philosophy, so what you are saying is invalid.

[Arising_uk]

1) yes ofc I deny it, because you haven't proved it, it only says philosophy has made a class top students, but doesn't specifically state why and how.

You know that relevance you talk about, well what you are saying here is not relevant as the results are the relevant point. The why and how is philosophy of which you appear to think is not needed? However, at the level that is being taught what they do is take the subjects of philosophy, i.e. morals, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc and discuss them using examples that would be relevant to the kids themselves. So pretty much exactly having a good discussion and learning how to discuss debate and argue and how to use logic when reasoning. Now you said earlier that it could be done with a good discussion and I agree and the subject par excellence when it comes to good discussions is Philosophy.

2) as I wrote earlier, it may have been because the teachers boosted their self confidence, motivated them and inspired them, so it would not be due to the philosophy in itself, but to the teachers.

Teachers need a framework to teach from and philosophy provides such a thing when it comes to boosting one's self-confidence in one's reasoning. It also allows the shy to come forward as in these classes how to listen, debate and argue for and against one's and others beliefs is the aim.

3) when you say "here it just involves teachers doing the job", that's what other teachers are doing and they make top students, classes and schools make top grades WITHOUT philosophy, so what you are saying is invalid.

And yet a large percentage of our kids are failing and it is this fact that is leading the schools to try and find ways of engaging the students and currently that are looking at philosophy as an aide. As teachers have to deal with a variety of children many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds who see no point in the subject they are studying, maths, physics, history, biology, etc, whereas everyone has an opinion about the subjects of Philosophy as they are pretty much universal existential concerns and as such can be engaged with by all. Which is the point, as it's not the aim to improve the A students but to improve the E students.

[XENA3001]

1) yes ofc I deny it, because you haven't proved it, it only says philosophy has made a class top students, but doesn't specifically state why and how.

You know that relevance you talk about, well what you are saying here is not relevant as the results are the relevant point. The why and how is philosophy of which you appear to think is not needed? However, at the level that is being taught what they do is take the subjects of philosophy, i.e. morals, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc and discuss them using examples that would be relevant to the kids themselves. So pretty much exactly having a good discussion and learning how to discuss debate and argue and how to use logic when reasoning. Now you said earlier that it could be done with a good discussion and I agree and the subject par excellence when it comes to good discussions is Philosophy.

2) as I wrote earlier, it may have been because the teachers boosted their self confidence, motivated them and inspired them, so it would not be due to the philosophy in itself, but to the teachers.

Teachers need a framework to teach from and philosophy provides such a thing when it comes to boosting one's self-confidence in one's reasoning. It also allows the shy to come forward as in these classes how to listen, debate and argue for and against one's and others beliefs is the aim.

3) when you say "here it just involves teachers doing the job", that's what other teachers are doing and they make top students, classes and schools make top grades WITHOUT philosophy, so what you are saying is invalid.

And yet a large percentage of our kids are failing and it is this fact that is leading the schools to try and find ways of engaging the students and currently that are looking at philosophy as an aide. As teachers have to deal with a variety of children many of whom come from disadvantaged backgrounds who see no point in the subject they are studying, maths, physics, history, biology, etc, whereas everyone has an opinion about the subjects of Philosophy as they are pretty much universal existential concerns and as such can be engaged with by all. Which is the point, as it's not the aim to improve the A students but to improve the E students.

A) NO

[HexHammer]

A) NO

..uhmm ..what a highly intelligent answer?

[Obvious Leo]

I think HexHammer is probably every bit as good as he thinks he is. He may even be better than he thinks he is. Undoubtedly the problem lies with the rest of us who are forever wondering who the fuck he thinks he is.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The "flimsy hammer, made of rubber" never has anything other than his 'opinion' to share, he never has, so called, proof, that supports his opinions. As such, seemingly, he just comes here to 'try' and bolster his ego, and it seems that even he doesn't believe his lackluster diatribe, because he often sounds like a broken record, as if he's still trying desperately to convince himself, that such banal ideas could be true. I do feel quite sorry for the lad, that attempts to build bridges, that he professes are so optimally strong, because he was the engineer, when in fact they are seemingly made of pop-sickle sticks and paper-mâché paste. Or at least surely his conveyance seems to indicate.

With comic genius as the measure I think Hex is better than possibly he knows. Dry situational humor. Steve Martin majored in philosophy and is/was a performance-artist philosopher. Hex knows that all of life is performance-philosophy, awake or asleep.

Of course you're entitled to your own opinion, whether the Rubber Hammer has been here many years saying things many times thus creating a track record, or you being here for a relatively very short time. I shall always fight for your right to believe and say as you feel!