Fair enough but it does say ‘Report on Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein, addressing the Oxford Union on 05/03/87. Includes speeches by Anthony Frieze, student; Chris Ahier(?), student; Gerry Adams. Male reporter not identified.’ The debate was on the benefits of British colonialism?
I suspect Mr Adams would argue there were limited benefits to sections of Ireland of British Colonialism. But while Sinn Fein wasn't classified as a terrorist organisation it did join in society. Of course they were linked with extremists but there was a spectrum of political bodies that continued to function.
To clarify, I don’t take it as a challenge for critical thinking because it’s easy and obvious, and you are being invited to disagree with reasons, but yes, technically it would qualify as “critical thinkingâ€, if you had an education/mindset that you must always agree with the views that are being shared with you, which has been my consistent position. My emphasis in the last part which you extracted was that it was extremely simple, and therefore not something anybody was incapable of, unlike say a debate about the British colonial legacy for example. Thank you for inviting the clarification.Original Post Deleted
I also note we might have slightly different opinions on this topic, as well as potentially different worldviews (e.g. I understand some people find Bentham’s views on utilitarianism morally repugnant, despite it theoretically being for the “greater goodâ€. I want to make clear that while I don’t quite understand that worldview, I’m not claiming superiority to it. I will argue from my own POV, but I cannot claim mine is “better†when I don’t even pretend to understand the other guy’s, so please forgive me if I am occasionally unintentionally obnoxious). That we might hold different views is in itself natural and fine.
I do think, however, we may end up slipping into an unnecessary misunderstanding due to my carelessness at post 27 (caused in part by already largely laying out my opinions on a different thread having to be duplicated here) if I don’t immediately clarify.
When I quote-replied you and posted the English version of the text of the exam question, only the first paragraph following was intended as a direct reply to you (and anyone following the media reports). In subsequently rereading at the time, I also tried to insert a “might have†that was missed, but was just past the limit on edit time for that.
I need to stress that the rant that followed was not directed at you, but simply any reader/test-taker. I made a similar unfortunate mistake with shri, but thankfully (I hope) he forgave me. I would be glad if you might be so generous as to forgive me, and continue to kindly correct me if I am in error as you did with the ex-ISD employee suicide case.
(Even in writing this, I had to revise the first paragraph because I originally again slipped into using “you†in the third person to denote the generic [“you†cannot claim “yours†is “better†- after {POV, but}] which again could have been perceived entirely differently to how it was intended. )
Last edited by AsianXpat0; 20-05-2020 at 02:52 AM.
That’s because I’ve only identified one poster so far to be acting like that, at least to me, and can respect and have no quarrel with anyone else with different views and would like to keep it that way. I would think basic civility is required on my part anyway, regardless.
My issue with the question is less about the topic and more that it is a leading question. It would be better if they ask "do you agree or disagree?" Then it shows less bias by the questioner.
I feel many of the critics are missing this point and focusing on the topic which is irrelevant to their argument since it is a topic which has been taught and which was to be on the exams. Their argument is basically losing the war hurts so we should not be taught about it etc.