Overstatement to make a point is called "sarcasm" but I had no reason not to take you at your word.K I Hyams wrote:You do not appear to have read any Charles Dickens. If you have, it must have all gone over your head. Dickens was very adept at using “overstatement to make a point”. It is a commonly used literary device and I assumed that it was one with which you would be familiar, because most educated people are. One of our members, who is also familiar with Dickens, uses the technique frequently. Most of those to whom he addresses his comments recognise them for what they areDon wrote: So you are arguing that you made no contribution to society and you are offended when someone compliments you for doing a good job because you know that you are not really interested in their welfare other than for purely selfish reasons. I would argue that in fact you are a horrible teacher then. Perhaps you were coldly efficient in the mechanics of your job, but I cannot see how any teacher can reach the hearts and minds of their students without actually caring about them. And I don't see how you can be so proud of that fact.
I'm just really glad I did not have any teachers like you. I have fond recollections of many teachers that genuinely cared, and even after I left school they would get visits from their former students, and they always welcomed those vistis - not out of vanity but because it was obvious that they really cared. You are a horrible example of a teacher even if you had some people fooled into thinking you were well qualified.
So you are not a good example of what I am saying about teachers or people who contribute to society. The kind of people I am talking about enjoy what they do for reasons that go beyond themselves. For example teachers who teach because it gives them satisfaction to help others - not because of the paycheck.
They myth that you and others here are trying to propagate is that somehow receiving a paycheck makes every good motive go away. Some people receive a paycheck because it's the only way they can support themselves and their families. Most full time teachers could not teach unless they received a paycheck.
Whether you recognised the device or not, your post was a temper tantrum to end all temper tantrums!! Well, I didn’t expect a positive response to my post, it exposed too many faults in your arguments. However, I certainly didn’t expect you to throw your rattle out of your pram quite like that!
I wonder what your motivation was to write 4 consecutive paragraphs of irrelevant bile, unwarranted presumption and insults. One possibility is that it was an attempt to throw up a smokescreen in order to hide the fact that you had absolutely no answers whatsoever to the salient points that I made.
Whatever the reason, I have no intention of debating anything with a man who behaves like you do.
If your response it to deny what you actually said based on some literary gimmick, then you need to stay out of this discussion - I do not want to have any kind of discussion with someone who cannot be counted on stick with what he says.
But even if what you are NOW saying is correct, are you now saying that you had something more than purely selfish reasons at heart? If you are saying that, then your argument is not valid because it implies that you cared about the people you were teaching - which implies that you were not totally selfish. But you are clearly dishonest because you resort to sarcasm to make a point that is not valid without the sarcasm - and yet then get offended. You cannot have it both ways.
Sarcasm or not, you clearly implied that you did not feel you were making any sort of contribution to society and were embarrassed when anyone else wanted to compliment you on doing a good job because they were implying that you did it for noble reasons and you knew you were not. If that is wrong, then you were not just exaggerating, you were lying outright.
