 |
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
Agathon - I often found it didn't help my grade any to share an opposing political/ethical viewpoint of any teacher/professor.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Agathon
quote: Agathon - I often found it didn't help my grade any to share an opposing political/ethical viewpoint of any teacher/professor. |
Then you didn't have me as your teacher. I never give people bad marks for being right wing - that's just not fair. I always think that a teacher should refrain from telling the students his politics unless asked. Some of mine might suspect that I am a social democrat, but none know the truth. I recently came across an ex-student of mine who now sells communist T-Shirts and he was as surprised as I was to discover our mutual redness. |
I agree, but from the new student's perspective he/she doesn't know which teachers will be (un)consciously fair. There is word-of-mouth, but that requires finding a couple prior students from that teacher for a good assessment - which isn't easy for all students.
Disagree / No bias = Good
Agree / No bias = Good
Agree / Bias = (Very) Good
Disagree / Bias = (Very) Bad
Eventually, I found it just easier and safer to be a good listener and tactful inquisitor to find areas to agree on rather than risk being "wrong".
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:19
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Agathon - I often found it didn't help my grade any to share an opposing political/ethical viewpoint of any teacher/professor. |
I often found that when people say this, it was a convenient excuse for sh!t work.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ancyrean
|
|
Back to Ankara, Turkey
Feb 2003 time: 12:19
|
|
The primary function of NATO now is to maintain an established institutional link between both sides of the Atlantic. Actually, NATO is the only substantial and meaningful institutional link between them.
NATO's successful past created an invaluable habit of consultation and coordination, which maintains a modicum of trust based on half a century of allied interaction. As such, even in bitter disagreements like Iraq, the NATO framework gives everybody a stake not to throw away the final link with the other side (if I may call it that) in favour of an unpredictable vacuum (made further bitter by the collapse of NATO).
Besides, NATO is the storehouse of operational guidelines for coordinating the armies of so many countries. NATO also created long-established and successful common standards of all kinds of weapons of its members to create meaningful interoperability. Over time, as different standards start to prevail between Europe and US, ditching NATO would destroy any future chance of common military operations by Europe and US.
Again, it's due to the existence of NATO that the bitter disagreements of our times don't assume dangerous proportions in the long run.
And what about this cherished "European Security Identity"? Europe itself cannot agree on what kind of a future it wants to have, it's only natural that they can't clarify what a "common European defence" means.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|