That's big of you.
I'd say simplistic rather than simple. The logic is flawed in several ways. You're claiming that any time students point to anything outside themselves as a factor in why their training isn't what they want, they are by definition a bad student. This is the "all wood burns, therefore all that burns is wood" fallacy. A bad student may blame external causes rather than accepting personal responsibility -- that's one way that being a bad student may play out. But you can't simply reverse the statement -- it's not logically valid.
Well, that's a nice safety blanket that will shelter many a bad teacher. If the student wants to criticize, and you don't want to hear their criticism, you invalidate it by saying that they're not "good enough".
Truth? You keep making statements as if saying something makes it true. If you say, "Two plus two equals five, no escape from that truth I'm afraid, is is is is is!", will that also become truth?
More argument by definition and argument from authority. Who died and made you the boss of what "martial" is? A bully club like this only works if your would-be target believes in its power, and I don't.
Firstly may I thank you for the twice you mentioned that you kind of agreed with my conclusions yet feel I must have got there by accident. That made my day.
How can you tell me what I'm saying and then call it flawed logic? Your mistranslation of what I said is not therefore what I said. I said a bad student blames. I infer by that that blame is something a lot of people believe is normal and logical and that I see it differently.
If you can't handle that view then it just shows me you don't understand it, that's fine by me. So it doesn't equal what you say about wood or any such. It equals looking at what blame is and how it is used a lot, in fact most of the time.
It is usually used as a projection of ones own failure onto something else, hence that IS what a bad student does. It's one of the things to recognise. Thus my comment for some would be informative but to those who have never taken this in to account it will seem illogical.
Add on to that that if you take the time to discipline yourself for a certain period of time where you don't allow yourself to blame anything then done as a little project a person can learn a lot about what I said.
Saying 'don't want to hear criticism' is once again a fallacy, it comes from you not me. To welcome criticism and blame and to see through it is my view rather than be led by it or feel insulted or otherwise.
When I mention the word truth I am saying to look at it ie: a bad student always blames and see how often it occurs. By calling it a truth I am saying it always occurs with regards to bad students.
Therefore you have something to inspect, to test the validity of rather than to react against.
Logically therefore you would either say 'I have been watching bad students and find that's true as you say' or else you would say I have been observing bad students and find x, y, z.
Argument by Authority? Maybe you don't like me having an authorative view, a view given with innate certainty. Well that's not my problem. The sky is blue. Authorative. When a person not only sees something but uses it all the time to good results he tends to know what he's talking about. He can share that without being meely mouthed if he so wishes.
It's not insulting so if someone feels insulted then they need to find out why.
But I understand this, you don't get my reasoning even if the conclusion you agree with. That should tell you something.
I didn't get to the conclusion by accident.