Religion in our schools

[ippy]

Just a link, worth a read.

All of our children should mix at school, the religion of their parents shouldn't figure in any way.

Regards ippy


https://www.tes.com/news/most-people-oppose-faith-based-admission-schools

Just found another link on more or less the same subject:

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/06/british-public-opposes-religious-influence-in-education-poll-finds

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a link, worth a read.

All of our children should mix at school, the religion of their parents shouldn't figure in any way.

...Only their Bank Balance.

[ippy]

...Only their Bank Balance.

What are you on about now Vlad?

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

What are you on about now Vlad?

ippy

It's his shorthand for a bit of Whataboutery. In this case it's 'what about  fee paying schools?' It's irrelevant to your point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's his shorthand for a bit of Whataboutery. In this case it's 'what about  fee paying schools?' It's irrelevant to your point.

Wait a minute, If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?

[Nearly Sane]

Wait a minute, If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?

No, that's just whataboutery. Even if you does think that, and you have no evidence he does, then it would just mean that he might be a hypocrite not that the argument was wrong. You would be using the tu quoque fallacy, or whataboutery as it is sometimes called.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, that's just whataboutery. Even if you does think that, and you have no evidence he does, then it would just mean that he might be a hypocrite.

That would do for me.

[Nearly Sane]

That would do for me.

So You accept that your point is irrelevant to the argument then, good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So You accept that your point is irrelevant to the argument then, good.

Not my argument that there is huge humbuggery around this issue it isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

Not my argument that there is huge humbuggery around this issue it isn't.

It was exactly your argument when you wrote 'If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?' So you correct your post above for your forgetfulness about what you had written, and we will just say that you now know you were both mistaken is saying the argument would be fallacious in the quote, and that you were mistaken about not having argued that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It was exactly your argument when you wrote 'If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?' So you correct your post above for your forgetfulness about what you had written, and we will just say that you now know you were both mistaken is saying the argument would be fallacious in the quote, and that you were mistaken about not having argued that.

Alright explain how an argument which goes.

Religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing but fee paying schools are right

is a logically coherent argument.

[Nearly Sane]

Alright explain how an argument which goes.

Religious schools are wrong because they prevent children mixing but fee paying schools are right

is a logically coherent argument.

It's not an argument - it's a strawman. To help you out think of someone who is smoking saying 'You shouldn't smoke, it's bad for you'. The you shouldn't smoke bit is correct even if they are smoking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not an argument - it's a strawman. To help you out think of someone who is smoking saying 'You shouldn't smoke, it's bad for you'. The you shouldn't smoke bit is correct even if they are smoking.

Well I've seen folks on message boards make the mistake of arguing against religious schools on the grounds of integration and support fee paying schools. So your strawman argument convinces me not.

[Nearly Sane]

Well I've seen folks on message boards make the mistake of arguing against religious schools on the grounds of integration and support fee paying schools. So your strawman argument convinces me not.

They might well do but I doubt they presented it as you did. Further that still doesn't make any difference to whether the argument that religious schools are wrong is correct.

Since no one is presenting any argument about it here, it's not only a fallacy against arguing against religious schools, it's entirely irrelevant to the posters on here as regards any degree of humbuggery. It would be good if you could actually engage with ippy's point at some stage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They might well do but I doubt they presented it as you did. Further that still doesn't make any difference to whether the argument that religious schools are wrong is correct.

Since no one is presenting any argument about it here, it's not only a fallacy against arguing against religious schools, it's entirely irrelevant to the posters on here as regards any degree of humbuggery. It would be good if you could actually engage with ippy's point at some stage.

I have done. I want to know if he genuinely believes segregation of children in the context of education is always wrong. I am awaiting his response.

[Nearly Sane]

I have done. I want to know if he genuinely believes segregation of children in the context of education is always wrong. I am awaiting his response.

It doesn't engage with the argument. And let's say he doesn't in certain circumstances - that doesn't mean that there he is necessarily being a hypocrite as it is perfectly possible to have general principles that can be in conflict with each other - for example 'it is wrong to lie' and 'it is wrong to cause harm'. I could and indeed do hold them as general rules but if a Nazi asks me if I know where the Frank family are, and I know they are upstairs in the attic, then me say 'Not a clue' doesn't to my mind make me a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean to say that any argument for lying being wrong is incorrect.

[SteveH]

Well I've seen folks on message boards make the mistake of arguing against religious schools on the grounds of integration and support fee paying schools. So your strawman argument convinces me not.

Well, I'm agin both, though I don't want to ban them. I would, however, withdraw state support for religious schools, and take away fee-paying scholls' charitable status. (I'd also make it a lot harder to home-school kids, a thoroughly bad idea, though again I wouldn't ban it completely.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't engage with the argument. And let's say he doesn't in certain circumstances - that doesn't mean that there he is necessarily being a hypocrite as it is perfectly possible to have general principles that can be in conflict with each other - for example 'it is wrong to lie' and 'it is wrong to cause harm'. I could and indeed do hold them as general rules but if a Nazi asks me if I know where the Frank family are, and I know they are upstairs in the attic, then me say 'Not a clue' doesn't to my mind make me a hypocrite, and it doesn't mean to say that any argument for lying being wrong is incorrect.

But I'm sorry Sane we need to know what his argument is.

Is it religious schools stop children mixing full stop or what?
What is his focus. Is it religion or is it Mixing?
He needs to clarify and provide context.
Why did he not just say segregated schools prevent children mixing? We need to get his perspective on what it is he is actually saying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, I'm agin both, though I don't want to ban them. I would, however, withdraw state support for religious schools, and take away fee-paying scholls' charitable status.

And that is a consistent argument.
In my opinion Nearly Sane seems to want to defend the argument against religious schools segregating while supporting fee paying schools as somehow reasonable.
I don't understand that.

[ippy]

I have done. I want to know if he genuinely believes segregation of children in the context of education is always wrong. I am awaiting his response.

I don't mind answering you Vlad, it's just that if I do answer you, you seem to get into some sort of ginormous muddle with virtually everything that's put before you and it always looks to me as though you deliberately misunderstand whoever it happens to be that's trying their best to communicate with you; you certainly don't communicate English in anything close to the way the most of us do.

Regards ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't mind answering you Vlad, it's just that if I do answer you, you seem to get into some sort of ginormous muddle with virtually everything that's put before you and it always looks to me as though you deliberately misunderstand whoever it happens to be that's trying their best to communicate with you; you certainly don't communicate English in anything close to the way the most of us do.

Regards ippy.

He says 'I don't mind answering you' and then does a diversionary ad hominem!

have another go Ippy.......

Do you support any of the following schools?
Fee Paying
Special Needs
Grammar schools
Single sex schools

[ProfessorDavey]

Wait a minute, If Ippy is arguing that religious schools should be stopped because they do not allow Kids to mix and yet he were to support fee paying schools or grammar schools. or single sex schools or special needs schools then his argument would be completely fallacious would it not?

Fee paying schools aren't funded by the tax payer.

And for grammar schools, single sex schools and special needs schools there are educational arguments for their existence. While we might not agree with those educational arguments, their existence is justified on the basis of educational benefit. There is no such pedagogical or educational argument for faith schools, which would effectively be suggesting that a christian sitting next to another christian learns better than a christian sitting next to an atheist. That suggestion is bonkers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fee paying schools aren't funded by the tax payer.

That's another argument Davey. Do keep up.

[Nearly Sane]

And that is a consistent argument.
In my opinion Nearly Sane seems to want to defend the argument against religious schools segregating while supporting fee paying schools as somehow reasonable.
I don't understand that.

Any link to where I said that? Because to help you out I haven't.

[Nearly Sane]

But I'm sorry Sane we need to know what his argument is.

Is it religious schools stop children mixing full stop or what?
What is his focus. Is it religion or is it Mixing?
He needs to clarify and provide context.
Why did he not just say segregated schools prevent children mixing? We need to get his perspective on what it is he is actually saying.

So given that you have ignored my post to which I replied can I take it that you agree that applying absolautes as you were doing is simplistic? If not why not?


Who is 'we'?