Plato is Non-Toxic, They Say...
Yesterday I officially registered and received my books. They certainly look impressive enough, with their heavy bindings and muted colors.
The real blogtastic event, however, occurred when one of the professors gave our class a survey of Legal History. She began by gently canoodling the Socratic method out of her bag of tricks.
First she asked the seemingly innocuous question, "Why is it wrong to kill someone?"
Someone responded, "Because it's the law."
I almost died right there. I can see my fellow peer living in a world where legislation is passed that outlaws breathing, and the poor chap in a civil frenzy suffocates himself with a pillow.
Some other answers were proffered but my head was swimming from the response before, so I tuned them out. I could tell from her body language that the answers- whatever they were- didn't pass the smell test.
Next she asked, "Why is it more wrong to kill an animal than a human?"
Oh my- I can already tell this isn't going to be good. Suddenly hands shot up around me, and you'll be glad to know I recorded their answers so you could enjoy them too.
"Because animals don't have souls."
Ponder on that statement a bit. I can actually see this person imagining that scientists have developed a device that examines and analyzes souls. Do they really think that our system of law and government is based on something that can't be seen or proven except by faith? Furthermore, how does he know humans have them and animals don't? There are so many things "wrong" with this response I don't even know where to begin. The professor was nice about it, this being orientation, but during school I bet he would have gotten his head sent back to him on a platter, a la John the Baptist.
"Because humans are capable of abstract thought?"
It is nice to know that I can kill people who are in comas. Also, apparently I have to administer an intelligence test to a deer before I can hunt it. Anyone who thinks that animals can't make decisions is insane. I'm sure you can come up with some more reasons on your own why this is such a bad answer.
At this point, it took everything in my power to keep my mouth shut. I suppose I'm a closet "gunner", one who wishes he could always comment yet doesn't. The last thing I need my peers to know is that I can throw a sentence together that sounds good and has a decent thought behind it. The second they realize I have a scintilla of intellect at my disposal, they will leech on to me in the middling hope that they can ride my intellectual coattails to success.
I'm done teaching, if you haven't noticed. I want nothing to do with anyone that has nothing to offer me.
So I play the fool in this Shakespearean play, until that time during the final act when I throw off my mask and display my gift.
The real blogtastic event, however, occurred when one of the professors gave our class a survey of Legal History. She began by gently canoodling the Socratic method out of her bag of tricks.
First she asked the seemingly innocuous question, "Why is it wrong to kill someone?"
Someone responded, "Because it's the law."
I almost died right there. I can see my fellow peer living in a world where legislation is passed that outlaws breathing, and the poor chap in a civil frenzy suffocates himself with a pillow.
Some other answers were proffered but my head was swimming from the response before, so I tuned them out. I could tell from her body language that the answers- whatever they were- didn't pass the smell test.
Next she asked, "Why is it more wrong to kill an animal than a human?"
Oh my- I can already tell this isn't going to be good. Suddenly hands shot up around me, and you'll be glad to know I recorded their answers so you could enjoy them too.
"Because animals don't have souls."
Ponder on that statement a bit. I can actually see this person imagining that scientists have developed a device that examines and analyzes souls. Do they really think that our system of law and government is based on something that can't be seen or proven except by faith? Furthermore, how does he know humans have them and animals don't? There are so many things "wrong" with this response I don't even know where to begin. The professor was nice about it, this being orientation, but during school I bet he would have gotten his head sent back to him on a platter, a la John the Baptist.
"Because humans are capable of abstract thought?"
It is nice to know that I can kill people who are in comas. Also, apparently I have to administer an intelligence test to a deer before I can hunt it. Anyone who thinks that animals can't make decisions is insane. I'm sure you can come up with some more reasons on your own why this is such a bad answer.
At this point, it took everything in my power to keep my mouth shut. I suppose I'm a closet "gunner", one who wishes he could always comment yet doesn't. The last thing I need my peers to know is that I can throw a sentence together that sounds good and has a decent thought behind it. The second they realize I have a scintilla of intellect at my disposal, they will leech on to me in the middling hope that they can ride my intellectual coattails to success.
I'm done teaching, if you haven't noticed. I want nothing to do with anyone that has nothing to offer me.
So I play the fool in this Shakespearean play, until that time during the final act when I throw off my mask and display my gift.
1 Comments:
haha...so I shouldn't make a flyer about your blog and plaster it on the assignment clipboard RIGHT NEXT TO JACKSON's assignment?!?!
May we think swiftly & accurately, speak eloquently, and ultimately demolish thy competition on thy final exam.
Post a Comment
<< Home