Human Nature

[Extra Stout]

Perusing some blogs, I came across an argument between a leftist and a liberal religious person about human nature. The religious person made the statement that there is a universal human condition wherein humans tend to be selfish, tribal, and cruel. The leftist rejected this as right-wing propaganda and claimed instead that most instances of human cruelty are the result of Western culture and capitalism. He believed that had European civilization not spread around the globe, most people of the earth would live in peace and harmony with one another and with nature. He claimed that any instance of a non-European person acting in a selfish or cruel way reflects the contamination of Westernism upon that person's culture, and that person would not act that way had he never met white people.

The leftist went on to say that if only Western culture, capitalism, and monotheistic religion could be destroyed, the people of the earth could once again live in peace, harmony, and eco-balance.

The religious person thought this was absurd, and starting listing every other major non-Western civilization he could think of, and the ways, documented by anthropologists, in which people in those civilization acted towards one another selfishly, tribally, and cruelly, and challenged the leftist to come up with any society that behaved otherwise.

The leftist replied that the anthropologists were contaminated with Western cultural propaganda inherent in the academy, and that since Westerners had wiped out so many civilizations, and corrupted so much history, that there was no way to prove whether perfect societies existed; if they had existed, they would have been easily wiped out by warmongering white people. He then suggested that Australian aboriginies might be close to the ideal.

I am curious whether this particular leftist was just extremely batshit insane, or whether his views actually represent a significant cross-section of leftist thought.

[DarrinS]

The reptilian brain

[DarrinS]

By the way, where does PITA stand on Chimp-on-Chimp violence and murder?

[Bartleby]

Sounds like Rousseau vs Hobbes for dummies

[spurster]

The leftist went on to say that if only Western culture, capitalism, and monotheistic religion could be destroyed, the people of the earth could once again live in peace, harmony, and eco-balance.

That worked pretty well in China, I hear.

"Leftist" is the wrong label here. Maybe nihilist.

[LnGrrrR]

Perusing some blogs, I came across an argument between a leftist and a liberal religious person about human nature. The religious person made the statement that there is a universal human condition wherein humans tend to be selfish, tribal, and cruel. The leftist rejected this as right-wing propaganda and claimed instead that most instances of human cruelty are the result of Western culture and capitalism. He believed that had European civilization not spread around the globe, most people of the earth would live in peace and harmony with one another and with nature. He claimed that any instance of a non-European person acting in a selfish or cruel way reflects the contamination of Westernism upon that person's culture, and that person would not act that way had he never met white people.

The leftist went on to say that if only Western culture, capitalism, and monotheistic religion could be destroyed, the people of the earth could once again live in peace, harmony, and eco-balance.

The religious person thought this was absurd, and starting listing every other major non-Western civilization he could think of, and the ways, documented by anthropologists, in which people in those civilization acted towards one another selfishly, tribally, and cruelly, and challenged the leftist to come up with any society that behaved otherwise.

The leftist replied that the anthropologists were contaminated with Western cultural propaganda inherent in the academy, and that since Westerners had wiped out so many civilizations, and corrupted so much history, that there was no way to prove whether perfect societies existed; if they had existed, they would have been easily wiped out by warmongering white people. He then suggested that Australian aboriginies might be close to the ideal.

I am curious whether this particular leftist was just extremely batshit insane, or whether his views actually represent a significant cross-section of leftist thought.

Batshit insane. But yes, I know of one or two other lefties who are batshit insane.

The only argument that can be made is that European culture is not very good at establishing an equilibrium with its surroundings, as do most primitive cultures. (By maintaining an equilibrium, I mean not wiping out too many resources, to maintain self-sufficiency.) Even then, I can't imagine trying to make a strong argument out of it.

[DarkReign]

Uhhh, batshit insane. Mankind's predilection for violence and brutality extends well beyond (relatively) neo-geocultural classifications.

How one could even attempt to argue otherwise is an indictment on their persona and evidence to their ignorance.

[ratm1221]

There is only one answer for World peace. God. If everyone found God (I mean the real God, the Christian God, not one of these fake Gods) there would be complete and absolute world peace. Christians don't believe in war. God teaches us to love everyone unconditionally. Christians are peaceful people. Christians avoid killing or hurting people at all costs. If someone slaps us, we turn the other cheek, because that is what we learned from our savior, Jesus Christ.

[Blake]

There is only one answer for World peace. God. If everyone found God (I mean the real God, the Christian God, not one of these fake Gods) there would be complete and absolute world peace. Christians don't believe in war. God teaches us to love everyone unconditionally. Christians are peaceful people. Christians avoid killing or hurting people at all costs. If someone slaps us, we turn the other cheek, because that is what we learned from our savior, Jesus Christ.

angel luv, is that you?

[Winehole23]

I guess the whole world is composed of noble savages except for European monotheists or anybody *contaminated* by the same. It bodes ill for the state of nature IMO that it shrivels and dies wherever it comes into contact with actually existing human culture.

[LnGrrrR]

angel luv, is that you?

Beat me to it.

[Blake]

Perusing some blogs, I came across an argument between a leftist and a liberal religious person about human nature. The religious person made the statement that there is a universal human condition wherein humans tend to be selfish, tribal, and cruel. The leftist rejected this as right-wing propaganda and claimed instead that most instances of human cruelty are the result of Western culture and capitalism.

just out of morbid curiosity, if I understand this correctly, this is basically a staunch democrat arguing with a more open liberal saying that he has fallen for right wing propaganda?

and honestly, if someone blogs that most instances of human cruelty are the result of western culture and capitalism, it's really not worth reading beyond the blog title, let alone starting a thread over here asking if there is any validity to his(her) claim.

[Extra Stout]

random nonsense
If this were a game of logical fallacy poker, you would have a very strong hand. You have a double strawman with a non-sequitur kicker -- you answered an argument I did not make with an argument Christianity does not make, and it has nothing to do with the thread to begin with!

[Extra Stout]

just out of morbid curiosity, if I understand this correctly, this is basically a staunch democrat arguing with a more open liberal saying that he has fallen for right wing propaganda?

and honestly, if someone blogs that most instances of human cruelty are the result of western culture and capitalism, it's really not worth reading beyond the blog title, let alone starting a thread over here asking if there is any validity to his(her) claim.

It was a liberal blog, and these were two commenters. Of course, one usually gets the fair share of incoherent twits who can't use English on any blog including leftie ones, but this person seemed coherent. It fits caricatures righties make of lefties. I was surprised to read the walking, breathing caricature.

I just couldn't tell how many people think like that. There is a poster who frequents this forum who fits every caricature of the gun-hoarding rural Western nativist conservative crank, yet his views are not all that uncommon on the right; maybe 5% of the population thinks somewhere along the lines he does.

[balli]

The answer lie somewhere in between. I think the semi-correct answer is summed up nicely by the phrase, most persons are fundamentally good, people are fundamentally evil.

I don't think the crazy leftist was right, but I do think humanity, under the right conditions, has at least some capacity for more tolerance, compassion and peace. Some groups more than others. But the notion that humanity's flaws are somehow a western invention, is ridiculous. We aren't helping too much, but original sin dates back a whole lot further than the rise of capitalism. IMO.

[RandomGuy]

I am curious whether this particular leftist was just extremely batshit insane, or whether his views actually represent a significant cross-section of leftist thought.

Batshit insane.

There is a pronounced tendency by the idiots on the left who are the intellectual equivalent of some of our worst right-wingers here, who see Western culture as somehow inherently flawed because of past colonial abuses.

There are those on the right for whom Western culture can do, and haven't done, any wrong, just as there are those on the left for whom Western Culture is a total bugaboo.

I don't think they represent a majority. How big of a minority they are is more unclear. My gut says: Not a large one.

It seems to be a closely-held belief on the part of many on the right that the US has never done anything *really* bad, and they really resent any implication to the contrary. I would say that is part of the definition of the right.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have the left who do not adhere to that.

This obviously includes both those who take what I consider a realistic view and acknowledge that our culture/civilization isn't without blemish, and as with anything, there is a full spectrum of opinion all the way up to the leftish idiot you were reading about.

Of my leftish friends, most fall into the "fairly realistic" category, if that helps.

[PixelPusher]

They're both wrong. The leftist is wrong in thinking cruelty, selfishness and tribalism is unique to (and propagated by) "Western Culture". The religious liberal is wrong in assuming cruelty, selfishness and tribalism represents the sum total of human nature. Human nature is a kluge of instincts that can be complementary or contradictory depending on circumstances or the innate preferences of the individual.

[RandomGuy]

just out of morbid curiosity, if I understand this correctly, this is basically a staunch democrat arguing with a more open liberal saying that he has fallen for right wing propaganda?

and honestly, if someone blogs that most instances of human cruelty are the result of western culture and capitalism, it's really not worth reading beyond the blog title, let alone starting a thread over here asking if there is any validity to his(her) claim.

Respectuflly:

He wasn't asking if there was any validity to the claim, he was asking about the pervasiveness of the claim, i.e. how widely held is it on the left?

[Winehole23]

Human nature is a kluge of instincts that can be complementary or contradictory depending on circumstances or the innate preferences of the individual.WH23 thanks you for the new word.

[RandomGuy]

They're both wrong. The leftist is wrong in thinking cruelty, selfishness and tribalism is unique to (and propagated by) "Western Culture". The religious liberal is wrong in assuming cruelty, selfishness and tribalism represents the sum total of human nature. Human nature is a kluge of instincts that can be complementary or contradictory depending on circumstances or the innate preferences of the individual.

too...

many...

syllables...

:smchode:

[RandomGuy]

WH23 thanks you for the new word.

Try this one:

Klieg light

[PixelPusher]

. He then suggested that Australian aboriginies might be close to the ideal.


The indigenous megafauna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna) that were wiped out shortly after the arrival of the aboriginies arrival to Australia might beg to differ.

[PixelPusher]

WH23 thanks you for the new word.

It's also spelled with a "d":



A kludge (or kluge) is a workaround, an ad hoc engineering solution, a clumsy or inelegant solution to a problem, typically using parts that are cobbled together.

Kludges are particularly widespread in computer programs, where processing speed is such that they may not make a big difference in performance.

I got lucky.

[MannyIsGod]

Completely fucking retarded. Its not a human nature thing, its an animalistic thing that most primates display.

[MannyIsGod]

If this were a game of logical fallacy poker, you would have a very strong hand. You have a double strawman with a non-sequitur kicker -- you answered an argument I did not make with an argument Christianity does not make, and it has nothing to do with the thread to begin with!

BTW - best post ever.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Completely fucking retarded. Its not a human nature thing, its an animalistic thing that most primates display.
wayyyyyyy too easy

[MannyIsGod]

wayyyyyyy too easy

When I saw you were the last one who had posted in this thread I realized the softball I had just lobbed.

[Cry Havoc]

I think the leftist in question represents the most extreme type of jaded individual -- one who has been so frustrated in his pursuits to explain the question posed that he basically decides that it all has to go.

I've seen it before, in professors and certain students. There are probably a number of psychological factors at play that are destroying this person's ability to think rationally. So they give up on good sense and seek an easy, overarching solution to their lack of ability to explain society.

[CuckingFunt]

I am curious whether this particular leftist was just extremely batshit insane, or whether his views actually represent a significant cross-section of leftist thought.

Both. He's batshit insane, but so are a lot of others.

Definitely takes these thoughts to an extreme, though. I know lots of people who view the capitalism/colonialism at the heart of "Western Culture" as being both an extreme version of humanity's tendencies toward selfishness and cruelty and as a system that helps to propagate and perpetuate those tendencies (this is an especially common line of thought in certain feminist theories as it relates to patriarchy and globalization, and one that actually makes a lot of sense in various arguments), but I don't personally know anyone who takes that far enough to suggest that the world would be sunshine and lollipops were Western Culture to suddenly go away.

[Blake]

Respectuflly:

He wasn't asking if there was any validity to the claim, he was asking about the pervasiveness of the claim, i.e. how widely held is it on the left?

I get it now.

I'm betting it's held by the pure left about as much as western civilization is really responsible for all the evil in the world.

just a guess, please nobody ask for a link.

[Blake]

If this were a game of logical fallacy poker, you would have a very strong hand. You have a double strawman with a non-sequitur kicker -- you answered an argument I did not make with an argument Christianity does not make, and it has nothing to do with the thread to begin with!

Does that beat a biased agenda based website flush?

[Blake]

WH23 thanks you for the new word.

you're welcome for nothing.

I hate having to bust out the dictionary every time you post.

[Winehole23]

you're welcome for nothing.

I hate having to bust out the dictionary every time you post.Google is such a pain in the butt. I'm not sorry.

[Blake]

Google is such a pain in the butt. I'm not sorry.

Opening a new window really is. Pretty sure I'm not the only one that skips past your posts at time because of your verboseness.

Non-apology accepted.

[PixelPusher]

Opening a new window really is. Pretty sure I'm not the only one that skips past your posts at time because of your verboseness.

Non-apology accepted.

Your browser doesn't have tabs or built in search fields?

[Blake]

Your browser doesn't have tabs or built in search fields?

:wakeup

I'm too lazy for that and I'm not as dictionarily inclined as some. I'd rather just read a post/thread without having to do any other clicking.

my human nature, I guess.

[Extra Stout]

Remember when George W. Bush used the word "kerfuffle" correctly in a sentence?

Does anybody think that was the word on his "Word of the Day" toilet paper that day?

[Cry Havoc]

you're welcome for nothing.

I hate having to bust out the dictionary every time you post.

Are you really that dense that you're unable to use a helpful little friend called "context"? That must be rough.

Perhaps you should defenestrate yourself to go play in the club section. It seems like this forum is a bit over your head here.

[Winehole23]

Opening a new window really is.Orly? I doubt it is for most.


Pretty sure I'm not the only one that skips past your posts at time because of your verboseness.I hear you, believe it or not.

I'll continue to rein myself in and I'm pretty sure you'll continue not to notice. No biggie.

[Extra Stout]

verbosity

[Blake]

Are you really that dense that you're unable to use a helpful little friend called "context"? That must be rough.

Perhaps you should defenestrate yourself to go play in the club section. It seems like this forum is a bit over your head here.

so you are saying that using big words for the sake of attempting to appear smart is what it takes to be in this forum?

Looks like you fall right in place here with some of the other idiots that do that type of thing instead of getting to the point.

For the record, WH is no idiot.....but you are.

[Blake]

Orly? I doubt it is for most.

I'll continue to rein myself in and I'm pretty sure you'll continue not to notice. No biggie.

I didn't say most. I said I'm probably not the only one.

Hell, maybe I am the only lazy idiot regarding this. Either way, just my op and just trying to mess with you a little.

[PixelPusher]

- > highlight the word you wish to define

- > right click on highlighted word

- > select "Search Google for '(the word you highlighted)'" from the menu

- > Firefox opens new tab that displays Google search results.


That's about as far I can lead the horse to the water.

[Winehole23]

so you are saying that using big words for the sake of attempting to appear smart is what it takes to be in this forum?You don't know what's in anybody else's mind, Blake. Everybody jumps in and starts swimming wherever they happen to be.

I'll try to be more considerate.

[DarkReign]

Derailed...

It's actually in some people's normal, everyday nomenclature to use three-plus syllable words.

It doesnt make them smarter or better, just more exact. Linguistic potency can be seen as a means to better express, with clarity, the intended idea/emotion/argument/etc.

Me? Ive always posted like I speak. Teachers always marked me down for it. Never understood why.

[CuckingFunt]

verbosity

Verbositiociousness. Ness.

[Cry Havoc]

so you are saying that using big words for the sake of attempting to appear smart is what it takes to be in this forum?

Looks like you fall right in place here with some of the other idiots that do that type of thing instead of getting to the point.

For the record, WH is no idiot.....but you are.

First of all, the fact that you admit to being too lazy to go learn a few new words for your own potential betterment is pretty pathetic.

And secondly, I have to laugh at your assertion that I use larger than average words to "appear smart". I could give a flip what you think about my diction or word choice. But then again, I'm not the one whining that people are using a vocabulary that's too big for my britches, either. Anti-intellectualism continues to power the human spirit! :lol

I'm not going to dumb down how I speak or type just so you feel better about yourself. What's there to lose by learning a few new words? Oh, right, you wouldn't want to give the impression that you're trying! People might peg you for an elitist, and we can't have that, now can we? :lmao

[Blake]

That's about as far I can lead the horse to the water.

thanks. I'm at work and running on an older IE.


Even so, again, that's a hassle and for me a distraction from the post.

Again, that's just me.

Again, me guessing that I'm not the only is just my opinion.

[Blake]

You don't know what's in anybody else's mind, Blake. Everybody jumps in and starts swimming wherever they happen to be.

I'll try to be more considerate.

I know what's on some posters minds and can make their post before they do.

No need to be considerate on my count. You post the way you want. I'm just spouting off for kicks and giggles.

[Extra Stout]

I blame the great Dr. Carlota Cardenas de Dwyer for my propensity to use words which are not in the typical American's lexicon. I cannot help it. I got ejicadid.

[Blake]

Derailed...

It's actually in some people's normal, everyday nomenclature to use three-plus syllable words.

Very true....and many times they lose their intended audience.


It doesnt make them smarter or better, just more exact. Linguistic potency can be seen as a means to better express, with clarity, the intended idea/emotion/argument/etc.

In this forum it's also done in the hopes that the reader gives up trying to understand the post so that the writer might get the last word.

[Extra Stout]

In this forum it's also done in the hopes that the reader gives up trying to understand the post so that the writer might get the last word.

Then just floccipaucinihilipilificate their contribution and keep scrolling.

[Blake]

First of all, the fact that you admit to being too lazy to go learn a few new words for your own potential betterment is pretty pathetic.

So you are saying this is the place to come for my own potential betterment. Got it.

...and I was gonna go back to school at utsa........phew, thanks for saving me a few bucks and wasted time.


And secondly, I have to laugh at your assertion that I use larger than average words to "appear smart". I could give a flip what you think about my diction or word choice. But then again, I'm not the one whining that people are using a vocabulary that's too big for my britches, either. Anti-intellectualism continues to power the human spirit! :lol

so "defenestrate" is part of your normal everyday vocabulary. Got it.

You are an idiot that appears to have been defenstrated numerous times.


I'm not going to dumb down how I speak or type just so you feel better about yourself. What's there to lose by learning a few new words? Oh, right, you wouldn't want to give the impression that you're trying! People might peg you for an elitist, and we can't have that, now can we? :lmao

So am I supposed to peg you for an elitist because you can use the word "defenestrate" correctly in a sentence?

[beeyotch: "bitch: 1. female dog

Blake rolled up a newspaper and slapped cry havoc just before defenestrating the beeyotch.]

[PixelPusher]

Verbositiociousness. Ness.

I use synthetic motor oil to prevent thermal and verbosity breakdown.

[RandomGuy]

What does it say about human nature that we have almsot two full pages of people bitching at each other about the choice of words?

THAT is the real question of this thread. :lol

[Cry Havoc]

So you are saying this is the place to come for my own potential betterment. Got it.

...and I was gonna go back to school at utsa........phew, thanks for saving me a few bucks and wasted time.

Wow, you got me there. Why would you ever attempt to learn something outside of an academic institution? Good point, I'll save my learnins for the classroom from now on.


so "defenestrate" is part of your normal everyday vocabulary. Got it.

You are an idiot that appears to have been defenstrated numerous times.

It's not a word I use every day, no. Sorry, I like to vary the way I say things a little bit, as I find it boring when someone uses filler words or swears in 90% of their sentences. Besides, I was being intentionally cheeky. More power to you, for taking me so seriously, I suppose.


So am I supposed to peg you for an elitist because you can use the word "defenestrate" correctly in a sentence?

[beeyotch: "bitch: 1. female dog

Blake rolled up a newspaper and slapped cry havoc just before defenestrating the beeyotch.]

You have long since ceased to make sense, but good marks for effort.

[Winehole23]

In this forum it's also done in the hopes that the reader gives up trying to understand the post so that the writer might get the last word.Are you sure about that? Maybe people just express themselves as they usually do.

[DarkReign]

Very true....and many times they lose their intended audience.

Who says their opining was intended for the soon-to-be-lost?


In this forum it's also done in the hopes that the reader gives up trying to understand the post so that the writer might get the last word.

I disagree completely. I think some individuals may do this (i cant name one), but I believe the majority here are uncommonly strong minded (you included). What other reason could there be, to be on a Spurs forum posting about political nonsense? Therefore, their real intent is to have a discourse on varying subjects with people who share a similar interest, but dont necessarily agree.

So what you see is really what you get, especially in an opinion-based forum like this one. You get half-thoughts, half-truths and half-asses juxtaposed to one another for no implicit reason beyond our innate desire to be the one on the soapbox, even for a fleeting moment.

[DarkReign]

Then just floccipaucinihilipilificate their contribution and keep scrolling.

Ok, I had to google that one. Though AskOxford only shows floccipaucinihilipilification as a valid word, I doubt it. Suffixes do not make a word, especially a root word so easily derived.

[Winehole23]

So what you see is really what you get, especially in an opinion-based forum like this one. You get half-thoughts, half-truths and half-asses juxtaposed to one another for no implicit reason beyond our innate desire to be the one on the soapbox, even for a fleeting moment.Sometimes a real discussion breaks out. That's what I like the best.

[Blake]

Wow, you got me there. Why would you ever attempt to learn something outside of an academic institution? Good point, I'll save my learnins for the classroom from now on.

I don't come into the political forum to learn new words, but if this is your place for vocabulary lessons, then great!

.....although, I'd recommend you save your learnins for the classroom.


It's not a word I use every day, no.

Of course it's not. You're an idiot.


Sorry, I like to vary the way I say things a little bit, as I find it boring when someone uses filler words or swears in 90% of their sentences. Besides, I was being intentionally cheeky. More power to you, for taking me so seriously, I suppose.

Meh. I don't take anyone serious on a messageboard and I don't take anyone as joking. I just respond to what's written and you can take it however you want.


You have long since ceased to make sense, but good marks for effort.

I made such little sense to you that you gave me good marks for the effort.......which in itself makes perfect sense in this forum.

you have long since been defenestrated.

[Blake]

Are you sure about that? Maybe people just express themselves as they usually do.

I am absolutely certain that some posters use big words and fancy science terms in a effort to increase their intellectual look.

Fuzzylumpkins is the first one that comes to mind.......I'll think of others....just gimme a minute or two

[Blake]

Who says their opining was intended for the soon-to-be-lost?

at times the poster will admit as much.


I disagree completely. I think some individuals may do this (i cant name one), but I believe the majority here are uncommonly strong minded (you included). What other reason could there be, to be on a Spurs forum posting about political nonsense? Therefore, their real intent is to have a discourse on varying subjects with people who share a similar interest, but dont necessarily agree.

So what you see is really what you get, especially in an opinion-based forum like this one. You get half-thoughts, half-truths and half-asses juxtaposed to one another for no implicit reason beyond our innate desire to be the one on the soapbox, even for a fleeting moment.

I never said the majority do this.

It's my own opinion. Disagree away.

[Winehole23]

I am absolutely certain that some posters use big words and fancy science terms in a effort to increase their intellectual look. Sure, there's that. Then there's people who are conceited about being plainspoken and make fun of posters for using "big words."

One can be vain and informative at the same time IMO. FWIW, posers usually get exposed on this board. Pretty ruthlessly from what I've seen.

When I run across posts that are too hard to understand in this forum, it's usually because the poster doesn't say enough, rather than the reverse.

[Blake]

Sure, there's that. Then there's people who are conceited about being plainspoken and make fun of posters for using "big words."

I would say I don't know what you are talking about......but that would pretty much be a lie.


One can be vain and informative at the same time IMO. FWIW, posers usually get exposed on this board. Pretty ruthlessly from what I've seen.

When I run across posts that are too hard to understand in this forum, it's usually because the poster doesn't say enough, rather than the reverse.

I don't really know how we got to this point, but come to think of it, verbose isn't the right word.......I think 'bigwordy' is more the word I'm looking for....

Even though you are bigwordy, you have pretty much proven to be a very reliable source of info and you do a nice job of breaking down and characterizing posts, which has been pretty hilarious at times.
I was just tossing a little junk your way which with the way everyone jumped in, obviously failed.

I have found plenty of posts that are lengthy and full of technical jargon, but then when broken down, really are nothing more than fluff and hot air with no substance.

....mostly in the 9-11 threads.

[z0sa]

Humans are very naturally evil, quite simply put. I have no doubt in my mind evil is inherent in every human in every culture.

[RandomGuy]

Who says their opining was intended for the soon-to-be-lost?



I disagree completely. I think some individuals may do this (i cant name one), but I believe the majority here are uncommonly strong minded (you included). What other reason could there be, to be on a Spurs forum posting about political nonsense? Therefore, their real intent is to have a discourse on varying subjects with people who share a similar interest, but dont necessarily agree.

So what you see is really what you get, especially in an opinion-based forum like this one. You get half-thoughts, half-truths and half-asses juxtaposed to one another for no implicit reason beyond our innate desire to be the one on the soapbox, even for a fleeting moment.

Poetry, and wise words at that. Color me impressed.

[RandomGuy]

I am absolutely certain that some posters use big words and fancy science terms in a effort to increase their intellectual look.

Fuzzylumpkins is the first one that comes to mind.......I'll think of others....just gimme a minute or two

I rather like large words. I love words in general, and I like having the right word at the right time. They are tools like any other.

Some people know a lot of words, some people don't. Literacy doens't always mean wisdom, as anybody who reads through these pages will attest.

[LnGrrrR]

Derailed...

It's actually in some people's normal, everyday nomenclature to use three-plus syllable words.

It doesnt make them smarter or better, just more exact. Linguistic potency can be seen as a means to better express, with clarity, the intended idea/emotion/argument/etc.

Me? Ive always posted like I speak. Teachers always marked me down for it. Never understood why.

Heck I love using big, archaic, arcane words. I just think it's fun.

[micca]

Perusing some blogs, I came across an argument between a leftist and a liberal religious person about human nature. The religious person made the statement that there is a universal human condition wherein humans tend to be selfish, tribal, and cruel. The leftist rejected this as right-wing propaganda and claimed instead that most instances of human cruelty are the result of Western culture and capitalism. He believed that had European civilization not spread around the globe, most people of the earth would live in peace and harmony with one another and with nature. He claimed that any instance of a non-European person acting in a selfish or cruel way reflects the contamination of Westernism upon that person's culture, and that person would not act that way had he never met white people.

The leftist went on to say that if only Western culture, capitalism, and monotheistic religion could be destroyed, the people of the earth could once again live in peace, harmony, and eco-balance.

The religious person thought this was absurd, and starting listing every other major non-Western civilization he could think of, and the ways, documented by anthropologists, in which people in those civilization acted towards one another selfishly, tribally, and cruelly, and challenged the leftist to come up with any society that behaved otherwise.

The leftist replied that the anthropologists were contaminated with Western cultural propaganda inherent in the academy, and that since Westerners had wiped out so many civilizations, and corrupted so much history, that there was no way to prove whether perfect societies existed; if they had existed, they would have been easily wiped out by warmongering white people. He then suggested that Australian aboriginies might be close to the ideal.

I am curious whether this particular leftist was just extremely batshit insane, or whether his views actually represent a significant cross-section of leftist thought.

Most of the liberals on this thread voted for president a man who spent 20 years attending "church" where this was the predominant political thought, a man who courted and accepted the support of louis farrahkan and the nation of islam,This is the thought taught in most ethnic studies courses in college,This is Ward Churchill, Angela Davies,Jesse Jackson, this is La Raza,Atzlan Rising this is a significant section of liberal thought, this is the democratic party's red headed step child. Most rank and file democrats may not agree with this thought but they don't possess the courage to denounce it, So they grin sheepishly when it rears it's ugly head and give the AW.. Shucks it's just boys being boy shit. racial strife and class warfare are the bread and butter of the DNC they're not intrested in solutions they're intrested in division.divide and conquer.

[Blake]

Most of the liberals on this thread voted for president a man who spent 20 years attending "church" where this was the predominant political thought, a man who courted and accepted the support of louis farrahkan and the nation of islam,This is the thought taught in most ethnic studies courses in college,This is Ward Churchill, Angela Davies,Jesse Jackson, this is La Raza,Atzlan Rising this is a significant section of liberal thought, this is the democratic party's red headed step child. Most rank and file democrats may not agree with this thought but they don't possess the courage to denounce it, So they grin sheepishly when it rears it's ugly head and give the AW.. Shucks it's just boys being boy shit. racial strife and class warfare are the bread and butter of the DNC they're not intrested in solutions they're intrested in division.divide and conquer.

this is a great example of the type of political forum post that I have been trying to allude to.

I knew it wouldnt be long before a post like this popped up.

thanks, micca

[Mr. Dictionary]

(from Webster)
Main Entry: ses·qui·pe·da·lian
Pronunciation: \ˌses-kwə-pə-ˈdāl-yən\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sesquipedalis, literally, a foot and a half long, from sesqui- + ped-, pes foot — more at foot
Date: 1656
1 : having many syllables : long <sesquipedalian terms>
2 : given to or characterized by the use of long words <a sesquipedalian television commentator>

When backed into a corner, a debater may morph into a sesquipedalian, talking dictionary and resort to drowning the opposition with syllables.

[Winehole23]

this is a great example of the type of political forum post that I have been trying to allude to.

I knew it wouldnt be long before a post like this popped up.

thanks, miccaNot the best example IMO. The problem with micca isn't so much pretentious lexicon as the farrago (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/farrago)of pseudo-rationality, mixed metaphor and cliche. To say nothing of his bizarre punctuation and capitalization. And his total disdain for paragraphs.



Rereading what I just wrote, I have to admit it. You were right to single me out, Blake. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

Most of the liberals on this thread voted for president a man who spent 20 years attending "church" where this was the predominant political thought, a man who courted and accepted the support of louis farrahkan and the nation of islam,This is the thought taught in most ethnic studies courses in college,This is Ward Churchill, Angela Davies,Jesse Jackson, this is La Raza,Atzlan Rising this is a significant section of liberal thought, this is the democratic party's red headed step child. Most rank and file democrats may not agree with this thought but they don't possess the courage to denounce it, So they grin sheepishly when it rears it's ugly head and give the AW.. Shucks it's just boys being boy shit. racial strife and class warfare are the bread and butter of the DNC they're not intrested in solutions they're intrested in division.divide and conquer.

You fucking idiot. Liberals all over this board have been denouncing it.

Honestly, do you have to go to some sort of reverse college to get this dumb? One where you take courses specifically designed to make you sound mentally challenged?

[MannyIsGod]

WKoJfolNJEg

[DarkReign]

WKoJfolNJEg

:lol

[DarkReign]

As it were, my response to ES's original post made little sense and didnt address the question...

I dont believe the extreme leftist represents any significant portion of the liberal catalogue. Should I say, no more than Young Earthers represent conservatism and their bat-shit insane take on the natural world and humanity's place in it.

Then again, I cant say that I know too many liberal people in general (beyond those here at ST). I have never attended college or been in an environment that could be stereotyped (rightly or wrongly) as a cornucopia of liberal thought and ideology.

Most people I encounter have only enough information politically to pick a "side" and staunchly support it with whatever rhetoric is being used of the day. Not much personal reflection s needed, nor inquisitiveness required to regurgitate talking points taken from cable news networks. Like a lion in the tall grass, they wait for their uniquely mundane opportunity to sound informed and outraged, mimicking their information taskmasters almost verbatim.

Some people may be impressed with such an individual because their own level of knowledge may be lacking (or their give-a-shit scale is far from tipped).

Me, I just mime a sock-puppet with my hand and say "Ok, Hannity/Franken, anything else on the docket today? Maybe a conclusion you have drawn on your own?"

Extremism, left or right, was summed up pretty damn well by Cry Havoc....


I think the leftist in question represents the most extreme type of jaded individual -- one who has been so frustrated in his pursuits to explain the question posed that he basically decides that it all has to go.

I've seen it before, in professors and certain students. There are probably a number of psychological factors at play that are destroying this person's ability to think rationally. So they give up on good sense and seek an easy, overarching solution to their lack of ability to explain society.

[Extra Stout]

Should I say, no more than Young Earthers represent conservatism and their bat-shit insane take on the natural world and humanity's place in it.
Young Earthers are not rare, though.

[MannyIsGod]

DR - you've become one of my favorite posters because you're not afraid to admit when you're wrong or might not know something which is a trait you find in the most intelligent of individuals, IMO. It signifies an open mind and even though you've never attended a college or university to date, I hope at some point in your life you're able to interact in that type off environment because your open mind would gain a lot from that, IMO.

In any event, I'd say there are definetly more young earthers than batshit crazy liberals. But thats because the batship liberals tend to be a segment of our "educated" population while the young earthers tend to be a segment of our christian population. Sadly the latter far outnumbers the former.

[Cry Havoc]

In any event, I'd say there are definetly more young earthers than batshit crazy liberals. But thats because the batship liberals tend to be a segment of our "educated" population while the young earthers tend to be a segment of our christian population. Sadly the latter far outnumbers the former.

Eh. I dunno. Anytime you see someone espousing a view like the one mentioned in the OP, it becomes that much easier to toss them in the "crazy bin" and not have to listen to anything they feel the need to say.

[MannyIsGod]

I have no idea where you're going CH.

[101A]

Sometimes a real discussion breaks out. That's what I like the best.

Yeah, that was nice.

[Cry Havoc]

Yeah, that was nice.

Yeah, that thread was nice.

[DarkReign]

Young Earthers are not rare, though.

True, but as a percentage of conservatives, do they comprise more than 15%?

Obviously, it would be a guesstimate from both of us, but if only 15% of your constituents are bat-shit crazy (phrase of the day, btw), youre doing alright.

I mean, I am/was a Ron Paul supporter and I dont even care to guess what percentage of his supporters were (drumroll...) bat-shit crazy.

EDITED: please dont require clarification of my support of Paul. My support of him does not extend beyond his fiscal conservatism.

[Blake]

In any event, I'd say there are definetly more young earthers than batshit crazy liberals. But thats because the batship liberals tend to be a segment of our "educated" population while the young earthers tend to be a segment of our christian population. Sadly the latter far outnumbers the former.

it's easier for some to believe kooks like John Hagee than it is to listen to the Pelosis of the world.

I'm wondering though if the cowsh1t freaky rightwingers outnumber the batsh1t crazy liberals. In this year of 2009, I'm guessing no......but that pendelum can swing either way in any given year.

[Blake]

I have no idea where you're going CH.

CH has no idea where CH is going.

[RandomGuy]

Young Earthers are not rare, though.

Yup, and we wonder why science education is in the shitter...

[DarkReign]

@ Manny

Well thanks, man. Thats about all I have to say, I try to emulate my hockey idols when it comes to this sort of stuff. Without this forum and the people in it, I'd be far more ignorant and intolerant. Reading the varying sides of the political spectrum (from NBADan, all the way through Yoni) has in the very least opened my mind to different perspectives and reasonings I would otherwise not understand (nor care to, in some cases). I am quite sure there are other, more hardcore political forums where one could probably gain a little more perspective, but this is unique in that commonality has a way of rearing its head when the tires meet the road, so to speak. All the stereotypes I had about Texas and Texans were quickly and swiftly guillotined a mere 2 months in. This site has put Texas on my to-do list, for sure.

Admittedly, I do dream of going to college/university. But to be honest, I dont have the time. Running a small business that has the chance to grow into something much more in the next few years with some hard work takes all my time and effort. Ten adult individuals count on our company to feed their kids, pay their bills and provide a means to retire at some point. That number will only increase in a short amount of time and I just couldnt see sacrificing any of my current responsibilities in an effort to satisfy my hunger for knowledge and expertise.

Its my great regret (as I am sure it is for many others) that I wasnt a more focused individual when I was younger. But, there is a flip side to that coin that I wouldnt trade for my doctorate. I met my wife when I was that head-strong teenager and she is far more important to me than any personal aspirations for formal education or wistful regrets of a youth gone astray.

[RandomGuy]

@ Manny

Well thanks, man. Thats about all I have to say, I try to emulate my hockey idols when it comes to this sort of stuff. Without this forum and the people in it, I'd be far more ignorant and intolerant. This site has put Texas on my to-do list, for sure.

Admittedly, I do dream of going to college/university. But to be honest, I dont have the time. Running a small business that has the chance to grow into something much more in the next few years with some hardwork takes all my time and effort. Ten adult individuals count on our company to feed their kids, pay their bills and provide a means to retire at some point. That number will only increase in a short amount of time and I just couldnt see sacrificing any of my current responsibilities in an effort to satisfy my hunger for knowledge and expertise.

Its my great regret (as I am sure it is for many others) that I wasnt a more focused individual when I was younger. But, there is a flip side to that coin that I wouldnt trade for my doctorate. I met my wife when I was that head-strong teenager and she is far more important to me than any personal aspirations for formal education or whistful regrets of a youth gone astray.

A couple bits of advice from a guy who does some bookkeeping on the side, and has seen a few small businesses:

Take about 3 or 4 accounting classes, at least ONE basic finance class, and if possible, macro and micro economics. Not all at once, but maybe one or two per year or so.

There are two sets of skills needed for any successful small business:

1)Technical
You have to know your shit. If you are a print shop, you have to know about paper, ink, presses, machines, etc, if you are a restaurant, you have to be able to cook decent food, etc.

2)Business
You have to know HOW to make money at the business. You have to know how much to charge, how much you are spending, etc. etc.

Small businesses that fail most often because of a lack of the second kind of skill, I say this both from what I have seen personally and understand from reading about others' experiences.

I would guess that since your business is doing well, you have the first one down pat, and have acquired at least some of the second kind of skills.

At some point, you may grow your business, or have the opportunity to do so, or simply be faced with some change in the environment. THAT is when you will most need to develop some business process knowledge. This knowledge can be acquired without cracking a book, but it is much faster and more efficient to read up on it.

You don't really need a business degree to be successful in a small business, but some basic fundamentals will get you farther faster.

If you ever need any more technical accounting advice, feel free to PM me.

[RandomGuy]

101A can probably attest to all of that as well, from what I understand.

[DarrinS]

@ Manny

Well thanks, man. Thats about all I have to say, I try to emulate my hockey idols when it comes to this sort of stuff. Without this forum and the people in it, I'd be far more ignorant and intolerant. Reading the varying sides of the political spectrum (from NBADan, all the way through Yoni) has in the very least opened my mind to different perspectives and reasonings I would otherwise not understand (nor care to, in some cases). I am quite sure there are other, more hardcore political forums where one could probably gain a little more perspective, but this is unique in that commonality has a way of rearing its head when the tires meet the road, so to speak. All the stereotypes I had about Texas and Texans were quickly and swiftly guillotined a mere 2 months in. This site has put Texas on my to-do list, for sure.

Admittedly, I do dream of going to college/university. But to be honest, I dont have the time. Running a small business that has the chance to grow into something much more in the next few years with some hard work takes all my time and effort. Ten adult individuals count on our company to feed their kids, pay their bills and provide a means to retire at some point. That number will only increase in a short amount of time and I just couldnt see sacrificing any of my current responsibilities in an effort to satisfy my hunger for knowledge and expertise.

Its my great regret (as I am sure it is for many others) that I wasnt a more focused individual when I was younger. But, there is a flip side to that coin that I wouldnt trade for my doctorate. I met my wife when I was that head-strong teenager and she is far more important to me than any personal aspirations for formal education or wistful regrets of a youth gone astray.


The wealthiest man in the world dropped out of college. A lot of people are far too creative to suffer through academia.

I think, for the most part, all a college degree proves is that you can commit to a long-term goal. I've met a lot of people that have gone to graduate school who have very little REAL WORLD experience.

[DarkReign]

101A can probably attest to all of that as well, from what I understand.

101A and I have had our conversations. He knows his shit, thats for sure.

[MannyIsGod]

The wealthiest man in the world dropped out of college. A lot of people are far too creative to suffer through academia.

I think, for the most part, all a college degree proves is that you can commit to a long-term goal. I've met a lot of people that have gone to graduate school who have very little REAL WORLD experience.

Going to school isn't necessarily about making money. I lament how our institutes of higher learning have been turned into glorified trade schools in many regards.

[CuckingFunt]

Going to school isn't necessarily about making money. I lament how our institutes of higher learning have been turned into glorified trade schools in many regards.

This. A thousand times.

[101A]

101A can probably attest to all of that as well, from what I understand.

Absolutely.

Best hire we EVER made; and it was a leap, was hiring a real, honest to God, CFO - ex bank president with his CPA - had no real training at all on mine, or my brother's own; what I have learned I've picked up from him; but I ain't him!

Your point 2:


You have to know HOW to make money at the business. You have to know how much to charge, how much you are spending, etc. etc.

was the most enlightening, and valuable; we were WAY off; basically we were working our asses off, "growing", but losing money on half our business.

[101A]

101A and I have had our conversations. He knows his shit, thats for sure.

Head......growing......can't......accept.......pra ise...........Winhole, quick get in here and make me feel like an idiot.....

[DarrinS]

Going to school isn't necessarily about making money. I lament how our institutes of higher learning have been turned into glorified trade schools in many regards.


You don't need to go to school to learn how to think, just as you don't need to go to church to be spiritual.

[101A]

Going to school isn't necessarily about making money. I lament how our institutes of higher learning have been turned into glorified trade schools in many regards.

Actually, the non, or only slightly, selective State Schools have become 13th - 16th grade.

[Blake]

Going to school isn't necessarily about making money. I lament how our institutes of higher learning have been turned into glorified trade schools in many regards.

I lament that out institutes of lower learning lack trade school options for many students so that they can make some money.

[MannyIsGod]

You don't need to go to school to learn how to think, just as you don't need to go to church to be spiritual.

Its posts like this that make it all too easy for the asshole in me to thrive.

[101A]

I lament that out institutes of lower learning lack trade school options for many students so that they can make some money.

+1

Good Plumbers, carpenters, electricians, steel fabricators, mechanics.......DON"T need college!!!

[MannyIsGod]

I lament that out institutes of lower learning lack trade school options for many students so that they can make some money.

Same coin - just the other side.

[101A]

Its posts like this that make it all too easy for the asshole in me to thrive.

:rollin

[MannyIsGod]

Everytime I hear someone tell a kid they have to go to college to earn a good living my head wants to explode. Our entire approach towards education in this country is fundamentally broken.

[DarrinS]

Everytime I hear someone tell a kid they have to go to college to earn a good living my head wants to explode. Our entire approach towards education in this country is fundamentally broken.


It definitely doesn't hurt. I see nothing wrong with going to college and majoring in engineering, accounting, computer science, etc. to get knowledge relating to those fields.


I don't know about you, but I want my doctor to have gone to med school. I want bridges built by people that have gone to accredited engineering schools.

[DarrinS]

But I understand what you're saying, Manny. College isn't everything.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that going to an institution of higher learning isn't about getting making more money but rather becoming educated. Yes, I want my doctor to go to med school and get adequate training but I would also rather go to a doctor who spent time during his undergrad taking classes outside of Biology.

[Blake]

Same coin - just the other side.

Since my wife is a high school teacher, I tend to stay on this side of the coin.

There are a bunch of idiots in her class who should be learning how to weld, or repair cars or fix broken computers instead of fokking off and messing up her Spanish class.

[RandomGuy]

Everytime I hear someone tell a kid they have to go to college to earn a good living my head wants to explode. Our entire approach towards education in this country is fundamentally broken.

That is one of the things I will be teaching my kids:

If you don't want to go to college, fine. Do something, anything.

Just don't do like my brother, who is a genius as a mechanic, but has no seeming ambition to make money at it. He has a wife and infant son, and it drives me and my family crazy that he is still earning shit working for some pissant garage, when he could be working for himself, or for a dealership and making some bank.

[whottt]

Perusing some blogs, I came across an argument between a leftist and a liberal religious person about human nature. The religious person made the statement that there is a universal human condition wherein humans tend to be selfish, tribal, and cruel. The leftist rejected this as right-wing propaganda and claimed instead that most instances of human cruelty are the result of Western culture and capitalism. He believed that had European civilization not spread around the globe, most people of the earth would live in peace and harmony with one another and with nature. He claimed that any instance of a non-European person acting in a selfish or cruel way reflects the contamination of Westernism upon that person's culture, and that person would not act that way had he never met white people.

The leftist went on to say that if only Western culture, capitalism, and monotheistic religion could be destroyed, the people of the earth could once again live in peace, harmony, and eco-balance.

The religious person thought this was absurd, and starting listing every other major non-Western civilization he could think of, and the ways, documented by anthropologists, in which people in those civilization acted towards one another selfishly, tribally, and cruelly, and challenged the leftist to come up with any society that behaved otherwise.

The leftist replied that the anthropologists were contaminated with Western cultural propaganda inherent in the academy, and that since Westerners had wiped out so many civilizations, and corrupted so much history, that there was no way to prove whether perfect societies existed; if they had existed, they would have been easily wiped out by warmongering white people. He then suggested that Australian aboriginies might be close to the ideal.

I am curious whether this particular leftist was just extremely batshit insane, or whether his views actually represent a significant cross-section of leftist thought.

Hmm...I've actually got a lot to say about this but I lack the time at this particular moment. For now I'll just say the leftist is an idiot for basing nothing of his perfect societies on fact(they werne't perfect at all) however he is righ that European colonialism spread a bunch of cruelty and fucked up practices around the globe. Did they create all of it? No...but they damn sure spread it to places that didn't have it(at least not in the form they were exporting it) before they got there...

Their two major cultural exports were categorizing races based on intelligence in relation to darkness or lightness of skin, and gender inequality.

You pretty much had to make your women second class citizens if you wanted to the goodies the Europeans could provide. On the one hand you can blame the Europeans for exporting it...on the other hand you can blame everyone that accepted that condition for accepting it.

Oh the leftist is right about one other thing thought not in the way he think he is, the field of anthropology is basically an indoctrination, but what makes the lefty an idiot is that he doesn't realize it's a Marxist indictrination and there are definitely a bunch of fucking crazy brainwashed anthropologists, but they are like him. I am pretty sure it is the most liberal field of them all. I think I read somewhere that 30 out of every 31 anthropologists are liberal(and I have met a ton of them that are proud Marxists)....I personally think that's an overly generous ratio...I'd say it's about a thousand to one based on my acquaintances.

Western civilization didn't fuck up Utopia...but it has spread a bunch of stupid fucking dividing lines.

[RandomGuy]

Since my wife is a high school teacher, I tend to stay on this side of the coin.

There are a bunch of idiots in her class who should be learning how to weld, or repair cars or fix broken computers instead of fokking off and messing up her Spanish class.

In some (if not most) european countries, they test you around age 14 or so, and then either send you to some kind of trade school, or start preparing you for higher education.

That is partially why they kick our asses when it comes to a lot of comparisons. They compare what is essentially the upper half of their high school age population to our average population. Of course we come out looking like shit. I could be wrong about exactly how this works, but this is my understanding.

[Blake]

Hmm...I've actually got a lot to say about this but I lack the time at this particular moment. For now I'll just say the leftist is an idiot for basing nothing of his perfect societies on fact(they werne't perfect at all) however he is righ that European colonialism spread a bunch of cruelty and fucked up practices around the globe. Did they create all of it? No...but they damn sure spread it to places that didn't have it(at least not in the form they were exporting it) before they got there...

Their two major cultural exports were categorizing races based on intelligence in relation to darkness or lightness of skin, and gender inequality.

You pretty much had to make your women second class citizens if you wanted to the goodies the Europeans could provide. On the one hand you can blame the Europeans for exporting it...on the other hand you can blame everyone that accepted that condition for accepting it.

Oh the leftist is right about one other thing thought not in the way he think he is, the field of anthropology is basically an indoctrination, but what makes the lefty an idiot is that he doesn't realize it's a Marxist indictrination and there are definitely a bunch of fucking crazy brainwashed anthropologists, but they are like him. I am pretty sure it is the most liberal field of them all. I think I read somewhere that 30 out of every 31 anthropologists are liberal(and I have met a ton of them that are proud Marxists)....I personally think that's an overly generous ratio...I'd say it's about a thousand to one based on my acquaintances.

Western civilization didn't fuck up Utopia...but it has spread a bunch of stupid fucking dividing lines.


thank you, whottt

[johnsmith]

Speaking strictly from an American Contractor point of view..........AMERICA NEEDS MORE SKILLED LABOR.

We are running the fuck out.

[whottt]

Oh one other thing about what humans do...

If it increases their chances of survival they'll get along, and if it doesn't they won't, and if it doesn't matter they usually get along and leave each other alone. It's not an either or type thing from what I've seen...it's very much a situational thing.

You'll never find a Utopia where resouces are scarce.

[DarrinS]

In some (if not most) european countries, they test you around age 14 or so, and then either send you to some kind of trade school, or start preparing you for higher education.

That is partially why they kick our asses when it comes to a lot of comparisons. They compare what is essentially the upper half of their high school age population to our average population. Of course we come out looking like shit. I could be wrong about exactly how this works, but this is my understanding.



Yikes, RG, I really don't like the concept of the STATE determining who will and will not go to college.

[Blake]

In some (if not most) european countries, they test you around age 14 or so, and then either send you to some kind of trade school, or start preparing you for higher education.

That is partially why they kick our asses when it comes to a lot of comparisons. They compare what is essentially the upper half of their high school age population to our average population. Of course we come out looking like shit. I could be wrong about exactly how this works, but this is my understanding.

There are a lot of reasons why we keep getting our asses kicked on the global stage, but I like this let's do it.

[Blake]

Yikes, RG, I really don't like the concept of the STATE determining who will and will not go to college.

at the age of 14, you have pretty much already determined your fate.

I would also tend to think in this day and age in advanced countries that whatever job a standardized test at age 14 puts you in, that the govt will not really force you to stay there the rest of your life.....although I have nothing to confirm or deny that.

[Blake]

Oh one other thing about what humans do...

If it increases their chances of survival they'll get along, and if it doesn't they won't, and if it doesn't matter they usually get along and leave each other alone. It's not an either or type thing from what I've seen...it's very much a situational thing.

You'll never find a Utopia where resouces are scarce.

thanks again, whottt

[DarrinS]

:lol

Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that going to an institution of higher learning isn't about getting making more money but rather becoming educated. Yes, I want my doctor to go to med school and get adequate training but I would also rather go to a doctor who spent time during his undergrad taking classes outside of Biology.



I'm curious what people on this board consider to be the definition of "educated"?


From Merriam-Webster

1: having an education ; especially : having an education beyond the average <educated speakers>

2a: giving evidence of training or practice : skilled <educated hands>
2b: befitting one that is educated <educated taste>
2c: based on some knowledge of fact <an educated guess>

[DarrinS]

at the age of 14, you have pretty much already determined your fate.

I would also tend to think in this day and age in advanced countries that whatever job a standardized test at age 14 puts you in, that the govt will not really force you to stay there the rest of your life.....although I have nothing to confirm or deny that.


:lol


I'm glad that's not the case. If my fate was determined at 14, they would never have admitted me into college. I was a long-haired, pot-smoking, skateboarding, BMX'ing punk-ass kid when I was 14 and I didn't apply myself.

[micca]

You fucking idiot. Liberals all over this board have been denouncing it.

Honestly, do you have to go to some sort of reverse college to get this dumb? One where you take courses specifically designed to make you sound mentally challenged?
Yes you're all veritable pit bulls with an anonymous face on an obscure forum but in the real world you're a poodle when faced with the likes of Jeramiah Wright.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes you're all veritable pit bulls with an anonymous face on an obscure forum but in the real world you're a poodle when faced with the likes of Jeramiah Wright.

Right... and I'm sure you're Muhammad Ali incarnate.

What's 'pitbullish' about calling someone an idiot? What, have you never been called that before? I find that hard to believe.

[micca]

this is a great example of the type of political forum post that I have been trying to allude to.

I knew it wouldnt be long before a post like this popped up.

thanks, micca

Hey no worries.

[micca]

Not the best example IMO. The problem with micca isn't so much pretentious lexicon as the farrago (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/farrago)of pseudo-rationality, mixed metaphor and cliche. To say nothing of his bizarre punctuation and capitalization. And his total disdain for paragraphs.



Rereading what I just wrote, I have to admit it. You were right to single me out, Blake. :lol

Ah. Whinehole your so precious I bet your mom's got all your spelling tests on the door of her fidge still, and she's right your such a special boy. Forgive me my grammar I'm sure it is some how relevant to the point at hand ,and if i wanted lessons in how to elevate the hissy fit and the bitch rant to high art you'd be my huckelberry. However Christ and Buddah were both simple and plain spoken and they were able to heal minds bodies and souls, and elevate the connciousness of multitudes, whereas your ability seems to articulate with keeness, and great skill a mind full of shit.

[PixelPusher]

However Christ and Buddah were both simple and plain spoken and they were able to heal minds bodies and souls, and elevate the connciousness of multitudes, whereas your ability seems to articulate with keeness, and great skill a mind full of shit.

I'm not too familiar with Buddhism, but Jesus had to speak in parables to get his points across, and yet the New Testament is full of passages with the phrase "his disciples did not understand". If only Jesus could have found a way to dumb it down a little more.

[micca]

I'm not too familiar with Buddhism, but Jesus had to speak in parables to get his points across, and yet the New Testament is full of passages with the phrase "his disciples did not understand". If only Jesus could have found a way to dumb it down a little more.

Maybe we should have found the courage to meet him half way.

[Ignignokt]

I'm not too familiar with Buddhism, but Jesus had to speak in parables to get his points across, and yet the New Testament is full of passages with the phrase "his disciples did not understand". If only Jesus could have found a way to dumb it down a little more.

I think the former followed the latter in that regard.

[PixelPusher]

Maybe we should have found the courage to meet him half way.

Is that like making an effort to try and understand someone even if they use them there fancy, big words and whatnot?

I have no respect for anyone who promotes the fallacy that they are "truly" intelligent and wise, by virtue of not polluting themselves with higher education - they're just lazy.

[Ignignokt]

Is that like making an effort to try and understand someone even if they use them there fancy, big words and whatnot?

I have no respect for anyone who promotes the fallacy that they are "truly" intelligent and wise, by virtue of not polluting themselves with higher education - they're just lazy.


why is it a fallacy? maybe in some cases they are wise, wisdom is not measured in linguistic and grammatical muscle. And in some cases, you're right, some people are just lazy.

[micca]

Is that like making an effort to try and understand someone even if they use them there fancy, big words and whatnot?

I have no respect for anyone who promotes the fallacy that they are "truly" intelligent and wise, by virtue of not polluting themselves with higher education - they're just lazy.

No, It"s not like that at all. I think Jesus dumbed it down as far as he could for people some people got it and some didn't.

[PixelPusher]

No, It"s not like that at all. I think Jesus dumbed it down as far as he could for people some people got it and some didn't.

I agree, but I wasn't really talking about Jesus, I was talking about people who take pride in their lack of intellectual curiosity, and pretends it gives them special access to virtue and wisdom that is unavailable to anyone who's ever read a book or attended a lecture.

Back to your original point about Jesus and Buddha being "simple" enough to enlighten...again I don't know enough about Buddhism to comment, but as for Christianity, if it really is so simple, there wouldn't be schools offering graduate and post-graduate degrees in theology, or the myriad of different church denominations.

[Blake]

I somehow skipped this earlier


:lol

Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that going to an institution of higher learning isn't about getting making more money but rather becoming educated.

College [instutution of higher learning] is whatever you want or need it to be.
It's a tool to use and it's not free.
If someone wants to go for the simple reason of increasing their earning power, looking at it as a financial investment, then so be it. At least they are doing their part in moving society forward.

I'm not sure why anyone would lament that.


Yes, I want my doctor to go to med school and get adequate training but I would also rather go to a doctor who spent time during his undergrad taking classes outside of Biology.

Last I checked, they do take classes outside of biology.

[Blake]

I have no respect for anyone who promotes the fallacy that they are "truly" intelligent and wise, by virtue of not polluting themselves with higher education - they're just lazy.

why don't you have respect for Jesus?

[PixelPusher]

why don't you have respect for Jesus?

I don't count Jesus among those described in that quote. In fact, I was trying (and doing a crappy job, apparently) to make the point that Jesus wasn't as "aw, shucks" simple as micca implied, based on the numerous accounts of his closest disciples not understanding what the talking about.

[Blake]

I don't count Jesus among those described in that quote.

well you said "I have no respect for anyone who promotes the fallacy that they are "truly" intelligent and wise, by virtue of not polluting themselves with higher education" and if the Pharisees/Saducees/etc were the higher education of the day, then that would pretty much put Jesus in that category.

if you don't count Jesus in that quote, then on what grounds can you say that someone else does not deserve your respect in this same regard?



In fact, I was trying (and doing a crappy job, apparently) to make the point that Jesus wasn't as "aw, shucks" simple as micca implied, based on the numerous accounts of his closest disciples not understanding what the talking about.

maybe you weren't using big enough words that people could easily highlight, right click and then use the search function.

[Supergirl]

By the way, where does PITA stand on Chimp-on-Chimp violence and murder?

Pita does not tend to stand on its own at all, unless it's in particularly stiff hummus.

[MannyIsGod]

I somehow skipped this earlier



College [instutution of higher learning] is whatever you want or need it to be.
It's a tool to use and it's not free.
If someone wants to go for the simple reason of increasing their earning power, looking at it as a financial investment, then so be it. At least they are doing their part in moving society forward.

I'm not sure why anyone would lament that.


Because colleges are now overcrowded and tuition rates are sky rocketing yet we're producing graduates who have lower education levels because they are now glorified trade schools. I expressly stated this. A college education today is not what it once was, which is evidenced by the number of students returning to school for graduate degrees where undergrads once sufficed.

More college graduates =/= a more educated society.



Last I checked, they do take classes outside of biology.

You apparently didn't take the course where you learned about hyperbole.

[micca]

I don't count Jesus among those described in that quote. In fact, I was trying (and doing a crappy job, apparently) to make the point that Jesus wasn't as "aw, shucks" simple as micca implied, based on the numerous accounts of his closest disciples not understanding what the talking about.

that's not what I'm saying at all your putting words in my mouth

[PixelPusher]

well you said "I have no respect for anyone who promotes the fallacy that they are "truly" intelligent and wise, by virtue of not polluting themselves with higher education" and if the Pharisees/Saducees/etc were the higher education of the day, then that would pretty much put Jesus in that category.

if you don't count Jesus in that quote, then on what grounds can you say that someone else does not deserve your respect in this same regard?

Maybe you weren't using big enough words that people could easily highlight, right click and then use the search function.

...or maybe you can stop projecting your populist disdain for education and actually, you know, read your Bible.


Luke 2:41-51

41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.

42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast.

43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it;

44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day's journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances.

45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him.

46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.

47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.

48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously."

49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"

50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.

51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart.
Jesus, at the tender age of 12, was a student of scripture to such an extent that he could engage in religious debates with much older Rabbis.

So, which one of us was "disrespecting" Jesus again?

[Blake]

Because colleges are now overcrowded and tuition rates are sky rocketing yet we're producing graduates who have lower education levels because they are now glorified trade schools. I expressly stated this.

I expressly read it. I'm wondering what your source is that says "we're producing graduates who have lower education levels"

than who? our ancestors? the rest of the world?


A college education today is not what it once was, which is evidenced by the number of students returning to school for graduate degrees where undergrads once sufficed.

Graduates actually are going back to school to learn more?

more lamentations...



More college graduates =/= a more educated society.

so what do less college graduates equal or not equal?


You apparently didn't take the course where you learned about hyperbole.

You apparently failed that course.

[micca]

...or maybe you can stop projecting your populist disdain for education and actually, you know, read your Bible.

Jesus, at the tender age of 12, was a student of scripture to such an extent that he could engage in religious debates with much older Rabbis.

So, which one of us was "disrespecting" Jesus again?

well what I was saying was that it doesn't matter how well you spell or that your grammer is flawless and you like to use innaproprate but important sounding words, that's not intellegence, sometimes it's just a really articulate way of saying you don't know shit. except for grammer of course.

[Blake]

...or maybe you can stop projecting your populist disdain for education and actually, you know, read your Bible.

I applaud education. I never said otherwise.

If you misread that maybe you should actually, you know, read what I wrote.


Jesus, at the tender age of 12, was a student of scripture to such an extent that he could engage in religious debates with much older Rabbis.

So, which one of us was "disrespecting" Jesus again?

That would be you.

If you actually, you know, read your Bible, you would know that Jesus made a career out of denouncing the scribes of the day while at the same time touting himself as the Son of God.

[PixelPusher]

I applaud education. I never said otherwise.

If you misread that maybe you should actually, you know, read what I wrote.



That would be you.

If you actually, you know, read your Bible, you would know that Jesus made a career out of denouncing the scribes of the day while at the same time touting himself as the Son of God.

I did read what you wrote:

well you said "I have no respect for anyone who promotes the fallacy that they are "truly" intelligent and wise, by virtue of not polluting themselves with higher education" and if the Pharisees/Saducees/etc were the higher education of the day, then that would pretty much put Jesus in that category.

...and I just illustrated that Jesus had a comparable education in scripture to those Pharisees and Saducees, so Jesus wasn't objecting to the their education or knowledge, but their hypocrisy and elitism. Jesus objected to the very idea of a religious caste who used their "access to God" to exploit the "unclean" to their gain.

If you can't differentiate between those two concepts, then there isn't anything left to talk about.

[Winehole23]

In some (if not most) european countries, they test you around age 14 or so, and then either send you to some kind of trade school, or start preparing you for higher education.It's a system that suits common sense and the common experience, but it's fundamentally *not egalitarian,* hence *unAmerican* and conspicuously European: the students get through by demonstrating mastery of the curriculum, or they get a goddam trade. No faking it in school or trade guild.

We oughta try it again. Not everybody is meant to go to school, like Blake pointed out. And by the age of 18, they ought to know something useful to do with themselves, so as to be self-regulating and very possibly to contribute to the general prosperity. When you give them the luggage it should be for real.

[baseline bum]

The wealthiest man in the world dropped out of college. A lot of people are far too creative to suffer through academia.

I think, for the most part, all a college degree proves is that you can commit to a long-term goal. I've met a lot of people that have gone to graduate school who have very little REAL WORLD experience.

Bill Gates and creativity?

Gates stole Windows from Apple, who stole all their ideas from Xerox. I'll give Gates credit for being smart enough to see personal computers were going to be huge, but he's more a successful raider than the creative genius he's hyped to be. The only reason there even is a Microsoft is that Xerox all had their collective heads up their asses and didn't realize what they had at PARC. If you ever see the stuff Xerox PARC was doing in the '70s, it's mind-blowing. They had an operating system and libraries that were so user friendly, they had 12-13 year-old kids programming high-quality applications in SmallTalk.

When has Microsoft ever done anything creative? They bought DOS. They stole Windows. They bought IE. BASIC was garbage. C# is a rip-off of Java. Then they try to shit on anything standards-conforming. I was fucking blown away when Visual Studio Professional was telling me all the STL functions I use to do LISP-style programming in C++ were deprecated, and to use their "safe" functions (lmao that the C++ Standard Template Library is deprecated!).

I can't believe they can get idiots to line up and bend over for a word processor, a spreadsheet, an email client that's been one of the most insecure pieces of shit in the history of computing, and a weak database by slapping it in a box and charging $500 for it.

I honestly think it's been pretty bad for computing that all our software has been dominated by groups started by a couple of young and dumb hobbyists (Jobs and Gates), instead of experts. Almost all the major advances in computing over the past 30 years have come from the mind-blowing efficiency and creativity of the people making hardware: the Intels, the Nvidias, and so on. All Microsoft and Apple have done to keep pace is to bloat their systems to hell so that you need all that computational power from newer hardware to run their products.

[baseline bum]

It's a system that suits common sense and the common experience, but it's fundamentally *not egalitarian,* hence *unAmerican* and conspicuously European: the students get through by demonstrating mastery of the curriculum, or they get a goddam trade. No faking it in school or trade guild.

We oughta try it again. Not everybody is meant to go to school, like Blake pointed out. And by the age of 18, they ought to know something useful to do with themselves, so as to be self-regulating and very possibly to contribute to the general prosperity. When you give them the luggage it should be for real.

By the age of 14 we start seeing tons of students dropping out. So many people leave freshman year when they hate or cannot handle high school, so I think it's a good time to try something different. Part of me thinks it might be bad for skilled labor to have the market flooded with new workers, but our economy would be so much more efficient if this huge chunk of people our schools fail are doing valuable work rather than flipping burgers, collecting welfare, selling drugs for pennies, and wasting away in prisons.

[Blake]

I did read what you wrote:


...and I just illustrated that Jesus had a comparable education in scripture to those Pharisees and Saducees, so Jesus wasn't objecting to the their education or knowledge, but their hypocrisy and elitism. Jesus objected to the very idea of a religious caste who used their "access to God" to exploit the "unclean" to their gain.

He denounced the formal teachers of the time and said he knows more than they do.



If you can't differentiate between those two concepts, then there isn't anything left to talk about.

don't bother. It's not worth it.

[PixelPusher]

He denounced the formal teachers of the time and said he knows more than they do.

Exactly.

Thanks for thoroughly debunking the idea that Jesus was an simple, uneducated populist who railed against intellectuals.

[Blake]

Exactly.

Thanks for thoroughly debunking the idea that Jesus was an simple, uneducated populist who railed against intellectuals.

what I said would not be considered a debunking by anyone other than you.

I'm not even sure what or why you are trying to argue any more.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Manny, graduate degree seekers are not on the rise because they are not properly educated as undergrads.

They are growing in numbers because of competition for the positions they seek. If you have 1000 applicants with a BS, but only 10 of those also have a grad degree.....

[PixelPusher]

I'm not even sure what or why you are trying to argue any more.

My original objection was to micca citing Jesus's alleged "simple teachings" to prop his argument against people he deemed were too intellectual and big-wordy. I think it further went off the rails when I responded to his "meet him halfway" comment by trying to steer it back to anti-intellectual idea, which you and micca interpreted as a swipe at Jesus.

[Ignignokt]

Exactly.

Thanks for thoroughly debunking the idea that Jesus was an simple, uneducated populist who railed against intellectuals.

Jesus was the Son of God, that means he is all knowing, you're verse didn't prove jack, aside from being you know..God, he kind of knows a lot about the Old testament seeing how he was there to form it.

Jesus used parables so that people could understand high spiritual concepts, this does not mean he was anti or pro intellectual. This whole argument is not about intellectualism explicitly but rather about people who are wise being pretensious, which jesus did speak about when he criticized the pharisees about being long winded when doing a prayer.

[Winehole23]

Hmm...I've actually got a lot to say about this but I lack the time at this particular moment. For now I'll just say the leftist is an idiot for basing nothing of his perfect societies on fact(they werne't perfect at all) however he is righ that European colonialism spread a bunch of cruelty and fucked up practices around the globe. Did they create all of it? No...but they damn sure spread it to places that didn't have it(at least not in the form they were exporting it) before they got there...

Their two major cultural exports were categorizing races based on intelligence in relation to darkness or lightness of skin, and gender inequality.

You pretty much had to make your women second class citizens if you wanted to the goodies the Europeans could provide. On the one hand you can blame the Europeans for exporting it...on the other hand you can blame everyone that accepted that condition for accepting it.

Oh the leftist is right about one other thing thought not in the way he think he is, the field of anthropology is basically an indoctrination, but what makes the lefty an idiot is that he doesn't realize it's a Marxist indictrination and there are definitely a bunch of fucking crazy brainwashed anthropologists, but they are like him. I am pretty sure it is the most liberal field of them all. I think I read somewhere that 30 out of every 31 anthropologists are liberal(and I have met a ton of them that are proud Marxists)....I personally think that's an overly generous ratio...I'd say it's about a thousand to one based on my acquaintances.

Western civilization didn't fuck up Utopia...but it has spread a bunch of stupid fucking dividing lines.Love it or hate it, this is the best straight response to the OP in the thread so far. WH23 loved it. Straightforward, spoke truth, and the apparently weird dilation on Anthropology turned out to be a good example IMO.

[101A]

well what I was saying was that it doesn't matter how well you spell or that your grammer is flawless and you like to use innaproprate but important sounding words, that's not intellegence, sometimes it's just a really articulate way of saying you don't know shit. except for grammer of course.


Double suiownage.

[micca]

My original objection was to micca citing Jesus's alleged "simple teachings" to prop his argument against people he deemed were too intellectual and big-wordy. I think it further went off the rails when I responded to his "meet him halfway" comment by trying to steer it back to anti-intellectual idea, which you and micca interpreted as a swipe at Jesus.

I didn't say any such thing. you're only able to hear what you want to hear.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, graduate degree seekers are not on the rise because they are not properly educated as undergrads.

They are growing in numbers because of competition for the positions they seek. If you have 1000 applicants with a BS, but only 10 of those also have a grad degree.....

I didn't say the above. I said the value of a college undergrad is not what it once was, and your second statement proves that.

[MannyIsGod]

I expressly read it. I'm wondering what your source is that says "we're producing graduates who have lower education levels"

than who? our ancestors? the rest of the world?

I'll provide you sources later today - I don't have much time right now. However, if you're so inclined to do some searching you may want to look up the sky rocketing percentage of students in remedial courses and the over inflation of grades in both high school and college



Graduates actually are going back to school to learn more?

more lamentations...


You are still missing the point. Completely. Its not about people going back, its about the function of today's institutes of higher learning.



so what do less college graduates equal or not equal?


It depends.



You apparently failed that course.

I'm quite sure my use of hyperbole was text book. Its not my fault you were unable to grasp it.

[Extra Stout]

This thread has gone in a lot of interesting directions... several tables each with their own discussion... like a virtual pub...

So whottt distilled from the whotttisms is saying, if I gather correctly, that the leftist has an legitimate beef with the evils spread by European colonialization, but his downfall is that the very anthropologists he disdains, because their work debunks his beliefs, cannot be so easily cast aside, since they more than anybody else are likely to be his ideological fellow-travelers.

I totally agree with those who criticize our educational system. We have taken egalitarianism so far that we think that everybody should go to college, which dilutes the meaning of college. We denigrate lucrative skilled blue-collar careers, and then can't understand where our manufacturing industries have gone. We can't decide whether we want our higher learning to be on the classical model, in which a person receives a broad liberal arts education that has little or nothing to do with a career, or the German model, in which a person receives a finely targeted technical education tailored for a specific profession. We somehow think that a liberal arts education qualifies someone for a specific profession, and also that a technical degree makes somebody broadly educated.

In this culture, college has become just another product. In exchange for money, a student receives a product which he can parlay into a better job. Colleges sell themselves based upon payback: you can earn $20,000 more per year for 50 years, so we're going to charge you something close to the net present value of that $1,000,000 for the diploma. It doesn't matter whether you learn anything (as if an English degree is going to qualify you for a career in business), so it doesn't matter whether we teach you anything. We just want to make the customer happy.

Changing subjects, PixelPusher, I don't know whether I would call Jesus "educated" in the sense of having had a bunch of educational training. I think the point of the story where he as a 12-year-old was debating the Pharisees was that it would be surprising for a 12-year-old to hold his own with the trained religious scholars. It is part of the underlying theme being communicated through the text that Jesus had special insight into the Scriptures because they are about Him, and he has discernment not because of intellectual training, but because of a noetic connection with the Father attained through prayer and obedience.

A big reason Jesus is depicted as so frequently berating the religious scholars was because in his eyes (and those of the nascent Christian community), though they had so much knowledge about the Scriptures, they yet did not understand them in terms of Him.

I would regard micca's assertion of Jesus being "plain-spoken" to be unbiblical (and possibly reflecting the lamentable American evangelical exaltation of anti-intellectualism). Jesus said that he intentionally spoke in parables because they were hard to understand, so only those "illuminated" by the Spirit would catch on. When the disciples failed to understand, often he had to explain his metaphors to them.

I would dispute cool hand's assertion that Jesus was smart because he was God and therefore was omniscient. That edges on Docetism. Jesus was fully human and dwelled in a finite body with a finite mind. A theology of kenosis (lit. "emptying") casts into sharp relief the deep meaning of divine condescension in the Incarnation. It means the God who created the Universe took on all the weaknesses and limitations of man in order, by uniting God and man in one body, to redeem men to God. As I typed above, Jesus' insights and teachings then spring not from a putative omniscience while on Earth, but from his prayerful obedience to the Father.

The practical application would be that having command of a bunch of intellectual facts about Christianity (e.g., me) is not the kind of "knowledge" Jesus is concerned about. A person can know the Scriptures backwards and forwards like the Pharisees did and have it gain them nothing. The person who puts Jesus' teachings into practice, who is obedient, who prays for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, who gives up life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, who does not seek "middle-classedness" (did I just quote Jeremiah Wright? Damn me!) but rather labors for the Kingdom of God, who serves others rather than himself, who tries to make things right in his little section of the world because he believes that's what the Father is going to do in the end for all creation, the person who LOVES, that is the one who "knows."

Scripture appears to present a tension between faith and reason. On the one hand, Jesus tells his followers to have faith like that of a child. I take that to mean the believer has a certain naivete. I think the concept of the "second naivete" applies here. I cannot become a child again, I cannot unlearn what I have learned, but after all my simplistic beliefs have been deconstructed, I nevertheless find meaning in my faith and trust in what I cannot see anyway. Paul goes on a polemic against the philosophers and intellectuals, saying that Christian beliefs such as the Resurrection are "foolishness" and a "stumbling block" to them because they do not see with the eyes of the Spirit. He says God makes wisdom into foolishness and vice versa.

On the other hand, after a long discourse about the Atonement, Paul appeals to reason in exhorting the believer to give oneself completely over to God in response to grace. Furthermore, when John refers to Jesus as the Word, he is not introducing a new idea. He is referring to the Logos concept articulated by Philo of Alexandria, and is claiming that the person Jesus is actually the human embodiment of divine Reason itself.

[Blake]

I'll provide you sources later today - I don't have much time right now. However, if you're so inclined to do some searching you may want to look up the sky rocketing percentage of students in remedial courses and the over inflation of grades in both high school and college

I'm aware of the high percentage of students in remedial courses because they didn't have a clue in high school how hard college can be.

I'm not sure what that has to do with them sticking it out and getting their bachelor's.


You are still missing the point. Completely. Its not about people going back, its about the function of today's institutes of higher learning.

I don't think you've ever even stated any real point. That's why several posters keep questioning you.

Give us your idea already of what the function of today's institutes is or what it should be.


It depends.

That's what I figured.

I'll go ahead and go with the simple assumption that more college grads equals a more educated society unless you can prove otherwise.


I'm quite sure my use of hyperbole was text book. Its not my fault you were unable to grasp it.


Yes, I want my doctor to go to med school and get adequate training but I would also rather go to a doctor who spent time during his undergrad taking classes outside of Biology.

If you are quite sure this is a text book use of hyperbole, then it's no wonder you failed.

But keep up with these failed attempts at hyperbole. I'm dying with laughter over them.

[MannyIsGod]

So you think I literally meant that Doctors take no classes other than Biology?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm aware of the high percentage of students in remedial courses because they didn't have a clue in high school how hard college can be.

I'm not sure what that has to do with them sticking it out and getting their bachelor's.


You're not sure what the rise in the number of remedial courses being given by colleges means to their purpose? It means they're currently glorified trade schools and high schools. As I stated above.



I don't think you've ever even stated any real point. That's why several posters keep questioning you.

Give us your idea already of what the function of today's institutes is or what it should be.


I stated the real point in my first post on the subject and many since then. I see you questioning me, but no other. Counting and reading comprehension do not seem to be your strong suit.




That's what I figured.

I'll go ahead and go with the simple assumption that more college grads equals a more educated society unless you can prove otherwise.



Assume all you want. That doesn't change that your statement is a logical fallacy. If we handed out a degree to each and every person we don't become magically become more educated.

[Blake]

So you think I literally meant that Doctors take no classes other than Biology?

you expressly never said "Doctors take no classes other than Biology"

and even that phrase is not really a hyperbole in it's true sense.

You have failed for the zillionth time.

[MannyIsGod]

you expressly never said "Doctors take no classes other than Biology"

and even that phrase is not really a hyperbole in it's true sense.

You have failed for the zillionth time.

:lmao

Is it really possible to expressly never say something?

[DarrinS]

College [instutution of higher learning] is whatever you want or need it to be.
It's a tool to use and it's not free.
If someone wants to go for the simple reason of increasing their earning power, looking at it as a financial investment, then so be it. At least they are doing their part in moving society forward.



Agreed.

[Blake]

You're not sure what the rise in the number of remedial courses being given by colleges means to their purpose? It means they're currently glorified trade schools and high schools. As I stated above.

junior colleges serve that purpose more than 4 year universities.

I don't know what university you are referring to that is just a glorified trade school. Pretty much any state school allows you the option to go to school for your own benefit. That's one reason why Liberal Arts degrees still exist.

What's your point again?


I stated the real point in my first post on the subject and many since then. I see you questioning me, but no other. Counting and reading comprehension do not seem to be your strong suit.

So you would rather talk junk than repost your point......whatever it is.

You've already told two other posters "that's not what I'm saying"

Vision and memory do not seem to be your strong suits.


Assume all you want. That doesn't change that your statement is a logical fallacy. If we handed out a degree to each and every person we don't become magically become more educated.

Who do you know that has a degree that didn't learn anything at all in college. I'm not sure what your definition of education is, but it's a pretty broad term.

No magic. For the zilliionth time, fail.

[Blake]

:lmao

Is it really possible to expressly never say something?

hyperbole

[MannyIsGod]

I've reposted it for you several times. And four year universities ARE serving that point as they've seen a dramatic rise in remedial classes also. I've seen you in these circular arguments before, Blake. Even when expressly given (and you acknowledge the point) you don't get the point. I don't know if you just troll or if you're honestly this dense. If its a trolling job, well done. Otherwise, well, I'm sorry.

[johnsmith]

I didn't say the above. I said the value of a college undergrad is not what it once was, and your second statement proves that.

So I'm confused now, why do people get graduate degrees then?

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.strongamericanschools.org/files/SAS_Diploma_To_Nowhere_v11_FINAL.pdf

30% of students who enrolled at a four year university in 2004 needed remedial course. The numbers are even higher when you factor in 2 year schools.

[johnsmith]

http://www.strongamericanschools.org/files/SAS_Diploma_To_Nowhere_v11_FINAL.pdf

30% of students who enrolled at a four year university in 2004 needed remedial course. The numbers are even higher when you factor in 2 year schools.

So what needs to be done then? Do grades k-12 need reforming? Should College and Universities adjust and not allow so many in? Who needs to fix this problem in your opinion?


Finally, Manny, how old are you? And how many years have you been attending college?

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/12/08/daily56.html
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3030
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_22_20/ai_112166845

[Blake]

I've reposted it for you several times.

then it should be no problem to repost it once more. Or is it really that much of a problem?


And four year universities ARE serving that point as they've seen a dramatic rise in remedial classes also.

and? so a student has to make sure he learns the remedials like pre algebra before getting into standard college algebra.

Sounds like education to me.


I've seen you in these circular arguments before, Blake. Even when expressly given (and you acknowledge the point) you don't get the point.

If you mean like how I ask for sources and for answers to simple questions, then yeah, I do that kind of stuff pretty often.

If your point is that you lament our college education system, then my question is "why"? in which you stated that colleges are nothing more than trade schools and I said "why is it bad if someone goes to school for the purpose of increasing their earning power" and you went off on a tangent about "that's not what I'm getting at"....

nothing circular here.


I don't know if you just troll or if you're honestly this dense. If its a trolling job, well done. Otherwise, well, I'm sorry.

Is this more of your version of hyperbole? Are you really sorry or is it some kind of lame exagerration that I'm not getting?

[Blake]

http://www.strongamericanschools.org/files/SAS_Diploma_To_Nowhere_v11_FINAL.pdf

30% of students who enrolled at a four year university in 2004 needed remedial course. The numbers are even higher when you factor in 2 year schools.

so why are you blaming colleges for the lack of knowledge that students coming out of high school have?

[MannyIsGod]

So ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. Why are there more college degrees out there and have we lowered the standards of higher education in order to achieve this or are college graduates of today on average comparable to those in the past?

2. If we have diluted the average education level of a college entrant what type of an effect on the end product of our colleges and universities. In otherwords, can we put weaker students en mass into these schools and expect the same level of graduates?

[MannyIsGod]

then it should be no problem to repost it once more. Or is it really that much of a problem?


Here's a hint. Use scroll or read. Nearly everyone of my posts has the point restated.



and? so a student has to make sure he learns the remedials like pre algebra before getting into standard college algebra.

Sounds like education to me.


Sure anytime you learn something it means you've become more educated. That doesn't mean the proper place for this type of learning to occur is in our state university system.



If your point is that you lament our college education system, then my question is "why"? in which you stated that colleges are nothing more than trade schools and I said "why is it bad if someone goes to school for the purpose of increasing their earning power" and you went off on a tangent about "that's not what I'm getting at"....

nothing circular here.


Its not bad when an individual tries to increase their earning power. Its bad when society's use of institutes of higher learning is to provide adequate job training for everyone. In the past, this was called high school. Overtime the burden for this type of training has shifted to colleges and universities. This is bad for several reasons. It begs to question just what the point of high school currently is, to begin with. Why aren't our students graduating with skills they can use and with appropriate skill levels in math and English? In addition, it raises the costs and lowers the efficiency of university and colleges which in turns leads them to producing graduates who are worse than the graduates of yesteryear.

In other words Blake, they've become glorified trade schools.

[101A]

I'll provide you sources later today - I don't have much time right now. However, if you're so inclined to do some searching you may want to look up the sky rocketing percentage of students in remedial courses and the over inflation of grades in both high school and college

You have no idea. One of CHIEF barometers used to judge my wife's "performance" is student evaluations. Near the end of a semester students are given a note card with 3 or 4 categories, and a 5 number scale for each. ALL students responses are given equal weight - the senior major with a 3.9 vs. the Freshman whose about to flunk out, and this is his/her parting shot. What is a professor to do to make sure they don't get excoriated by those evaluations? Make tests easier; give extra credit; hell, just bump the grades up a letter each. Self-preservation being what it is, many professor do just that. Those that don't get tough reviews; and chastisement from their dept./dean.

Last semester I helped my wife grade some Freshman Chemistry tests; on the first page she had a series of metric conversions for the kids to do; fewer than 40% could convert from cm to mm. THOSE students got to evaluate her.

When I went to school, the professor, the school, hell everyone as far as I was concerned, could give two shits what I thought of the professor.

[MannyIsGod]

so why are you blaming colleges for the lack of knowledge that students coming out of high school have?

Lamenting what colleges have become =/= blaming colleges.

[101A]

This thread has gone in a lot of interesting directions... several tables each with their own discussion... like a virtual pub...

So whottt distilled from the whotttisms is saying, if I gather correctly, that the leftist has an legitimate beef with the evils spread by European colonialization, but his downfall is that the very anthropologists he disdains, because their work debunks his beliefs, cannot be so easily cast aside, since they more than anybody else are likely to be his ideological fellow-travelers.

I totally agree with those who criticize our educational system. We have taken egalitarianism so far that we think that everybody should go to college, which dilutes the meaning of college. We denigrate lucrative skilled blue-collar careers, and then can't understand where our manufacturing industries have gone. We can't decide whether we want our higher learning to be on the classical model, in which a person receives a broad liberal arts education that has little or nothing to do with a career, or the German model, in which a person receives a finely targeted technical education tailored for a specific profession. We somehow think that a liberal arts education qualifies someone for a specific profession, and also that a technical degree makes somebody broadly educated.

In this culture, college has become just another product. In exchange for money, a student receives a product which he can parlay into a better job. Colleges sell themselves based upon payback: you can earn $20,000 more per year for 50 years, so we're going to charge you something close to the net present value of that $1,000,000 for the diploma. It doesn't matter whether you learn anything (as if an English degree is going to qualify you for a career in business), so it doesn't matter whether we teach you anything. We just want to make the customer happy.

Changing subjects, PixelPusher, I don't know whether I would call Jesus "educated" in the sense of having had a bunch of educational training. I think the point of the story where he as a 12-year-old was debating the Pharisees was that it would be surprising for a 12-year-old to hold his own with the trained religious scholars. It is part of the underlying theme being communicated through the text that Jesus had special insight into the Scriptures because they are about Him, and he has discernment not because of intellectual training, but because of a noetic connection with the Father attained through prayer and obedience.

A big reason Jesus is depicted as so frequently berating the religious scholars was because in his eyes (and those of the nascent Christian community), though they had so much knowledge about the Scriptures, they yet did not understand them in terms of Him.

I would regard micca's assertion of Jesus being "plain-spoken" to be unbiblical (and possibly reflecting the lamentable American evangelical exaltation of anti-intellectualism). Jesus said that he intentionally spoke in parables because they were hard to understand, so only those "illuminated" by the Spirit would catch on. When the disciples failed to understand, often he had to explain his metaphors to them.

I would dispute cool hand's assertion that Jesus was smart because he was God and therefore was omniscient. That edges on Docetism. Jesus was fully human and dwelled in a finite body with a finite mind. A theology of kenosis (lit. "emptying") casts into sharp relief the deep meaning of divine condescension in the Incarnation. It means the God who created the Universe took on all the weaknesses and limitations of man in order, by uniting God and man in one body, to redeem men to God. As I typed above, Jesus' insights and teachings then spring not from a putative omniscience while on Earth, but from his prayerful obedience to the Father.

The practical application would be that having command of a bunch of intellectual facts about Christianity (e.g., me) is not the kind of "knowledge" Jesus is concerned about. A person can know the Scriptures backwards and forwards like the Pharisees did and have it gain them nothing. The person who puts Jesus' teachings into practice, who is obedient, who prays for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, who gives up life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, who does not seek "middle-classedness" (did I just quote Jeremiah Wright? Damn me!) but rather labors for the Kingdom of God, who serves others rather than himself, who tries to make things right in his little section of the world because he believes that's what the Father is going to do in the end for all creation, the person who LOVES, that is the one who "knows."

Scripture appears to present a tension between faith and reason. On the one hand, Jesus tells his followers to have faith like that of a child. I take that to mean the believer has a certain naivete. I think the concept of the "second naivete" applies here. I cannot become a child again, I cannot unlearn what I have learned, but after all my simplistic beliefs have been deconstructed, I nevertheless find meaning in my faith and trust in what I cannot see anyway. Paul goes on a polemic against the philosophers and intellectuals, saying that Christian beliefs such as the Resurrection are "foolishness" and a "stumbling block" to them because they do not see with the eyes of the Spirit. He says God makes wisdom into foolishness and vice versa.

On the other hand, after a long discourse about the Atonement, Paul appeals to reason in exhorting the believer to give oneself completely over to God in response to grace. Furthermore, when John refers to Jesus as the Word, he is not introducing a new idea. He is referring to the Logos concept articulated by Philo of Alexandria, and is claiming that the person Jesus is actually the human embodiment of divine Reason itself.


:toast

[Extra Stout]

You have no idea. One of CHIEF barometers used to judge my wife's "performance" is student evaluations. Near the end of a semester students are given a note card with 3 or 4 categories, and a 5 number scale for each. ALL students responses are given equal weight - the senior major with a 3.9 vs. the Freshman whose about to flunk out, and this is his/her parting shot. What is a professor to do to make sure they don't get excoriated by those evaluations? Make tests easier; give extra credit; hell, just bump the grades up a letter each. Self-preservation being what it is, many professor do just that. Those that don't get tough reviews; and chastisement from their dept./dean.

Last semester I helped my wife grade some Freshman Chemistry tests; on the first page she had a series of metric conversions for the kids to do; fewer than 40% could convert from cm to mm. THOSE students got to evaluate her.

When I went to school, the professor, the school, hell everyone as far as I was concerned, could give two shits what I thought of the professor.
This is because colleges are not concerned with making sure students learn. They are concerned with making sure customers are satisfied.

[Blake]

So ask yourself a couple of questions:

1. Why are there more college degrees out there and have we lowered the standards of higher education in order to achieve this or are college graduates of today on average comparable to those in the past?

more college degrees out there? compared to when, who or what?

What standards of higher education are you talking about? Is college algebra easier today than it was in say 1950?

I have no clue what your vague question is referring to.


2. If we have diluted the average education level of a college entrant what type of an effect on the end product of our colleges and universities. In otherwords, can we put weaker students en mass into these schools and expect the same level of graduates?

The weaker students are put into the remedial classes until they catch up, remember? I guess memory really isn't your suit.

Again, instead of your constant broad sweeping generalizations, real sources would be nice.

[MannyIsGod]

I totally agree with those who criticize our educational system. We have taken egalitarianism so far that we think that everybody should go to college, which dilutes the meaning of college. We denigrate lucrative skilled blue-collar careers, and then can't understand where our manufacturing industries have gone. We can't decide whether we want our higher learning to be on the classical model, in which a person receives a broad liberal arts education that has little or nothing to do with a career, or the German model, in which a person receives a finely targeted technical education tailored for a specific profession. We somehow think that a liberal arts education qualifies someone for a specific profession, and also that a technical degree makes somebody broadly educated.

In this culture, college has become just another product. In exchange for money, a student receives a product which he can parlay into a better job. Colleges sell themselves based upon payback: you can earn $20,000 more per year for 50 years, so we're going to charge you something close to the net present value of that $1,000,000 for the diploma. It doesn't matter whether you learn anything (as if an English degree is going to qualify you for a career in business), so it doesn't matter whether we teach you anything. We just want to make the customer happy.


Fuck in the middle of responding to Blake I missed this. Solid post.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok Blake. Universities are not glorified trade schools. I was wrong. Peace.

[johnsmith]

So let me get this straight. Manny is in his late 20's. He's spent most of his 20's attending college.

If you have so many issues with it, why have you spent a 1/3 of your life there?

[MannyIsGod]

You have no idea. One of CHIEF barometers used to judge my wife's "performance" is student evaluations. Near the end of a semester students are given a note card with 3 or 4 categories, and a 5 number scale for each. ALL students responses are given equal weight - the senior major with a 3.9 vs. the Freshman whose about to flunk out, and this is his/her parting shot. What is a professor to do to make sure they don't get excoriated by those evaluations? Make tests easier; give extra credit; hell, just bump the grades up a letter each. Self-preservation being what it is, many professor do just that. Those that don't get tough reviews; and chastisement from their dept./dean.

Last semester I helped my wife grade some Freshman Chemistry tests; on the first page she had a series of metric conversions for the kids to do; fewer than 40% could convert from cm to mm. THOSE students got to evaluate her.

When I went to school, the professor, the school, hell everyone as far as I was concerned, could give two shits what I thought of the professor.

40% of College level freshman can't multiply by factors of 10. I'm amazed these people are even allowed into this course to begin with. If I was your wife I'd be pissed I had to deal with that.

Its all pretty broken.

[MannyIsGod]

So let me get this straight. Manny is in his late 20's. He's spent most of his 20's attending college.

If you have so many issues with it, why have you spent a 1/3 of your life there?

You got one thing right. You got something else extremely wrong. Its funny to watch myths propagate around Spurstalk.

[johnsmith]

You got one thing right. You got something else extremely wrong. Its funny to watch myths propagate around Spurstalk.

ok

[Blake]

Here's a hint. Use scroll or read. Nearly everyone of my posts has the point restated.

:lol which is that you really have no real point


Sure anytime you learn something it means you've become more educated. That doesn't mean the proper place for this type of learning to occur is in our state university system.

Then what's the proper place? If college graduates don't make our society more educated, then how do we get more educated?


Its not bad when an individual tries to increase their earning power. Its bad when society's use of institutes of higher learning is to provide adequate job training for everyone.

As long as you can still get your lib arts degree when you want to, why is this a bad thing?


In the past, this was called high school.

so I guess now it's college? Why is this bad again?


Overtime the burden for this type of training has shifted to colleges and universities.

a burden that colleges gladly accept. There's a reason why Our Lady of the Lake is offering accelerated business classes in order for you to get accepted into graduate program


This is bad for several reasons. It begs to question just what the point of high school currently is, to begin with. Why aren't our students graduating with skills they can use and with appropriate skill levels in math and English?

so you finally figured out that we have problems with our grade school education system. Good for you!


In addition, it raises the costs and lowers the efficiency of university and colleges which in turns leads them to producing graduates who are worse than the graduates of yesteryear.

again, is it really to much to ask you to copy and paste something from a legitimate source instead of just you talking out of your ass?


In other words Blake, they've become glorified trade schools.

in other words, you are going on basically nothing but your own assumptions on the way things are in the collegiate world.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I do believe a college education wasnt what it once was, partly due to overcrowding, partly due to no motivation by the student to better his or herself....but I don't look at the overcrowding, and increasing qualifications for jobs as direct evidence the 4 year college education isn't what it used to be.
I see lower quality of education partly as a result of overcrowding.

[johnsmith]

I miss college. If I had to do it all over again, I'd drink more while in college. Maybe add Monday's to my days of the week that I drank.

I always took Monday's off.

[Bartleby]

This is because colleges are not concerned with making sure students learn. They are concerned with making sure customers are satisfied.

The cynic in me agrees with this, but I think it's important to note that many (most?) profs truly are committed to teaching. As 101A pointed out, the pressure to keep student retention levels high and graduate happy customers usually comes indirectly, by way of student evaluations.

They are a crude way to measure performance, but many institutions give them significant weight in the hiring and promotion processes, particularly when it comes to junior faculty positions.

[Blake]

You have no idea. One of CHIEF barometers used to judge my wife's "performance" is student evaluations. Near the end of a semester students are given a note card with 3 or 4 categories, and a 5 number scale for each. ALL students responses are given equal weight - the senior major with a 3.9 vs. the Freshman whose about to flunk out, and this is his/her parting shot. What is a professor to do to make sure they don't get excoriated by those evaluations? Make tests easier; give extra credit; hell, just bump the grades up a letter each. Self-preservation being what it is, many professor do just that. Those that don't get tough reviews; and chastisement from their dept./dean.

Last semester I helped my wife grade some Freshman Chemistry tests; on the first page she had a series of metric conversions for the kids to do; fewer than 40% could convert from cm to mm. THOSE students got to evaluate her.

When I went to school, the professor, the school, hell everyone as far as I was concerned, could give two shits what I thought of the professor.

I have no doubt about professors looking out for themselves before the students but I think the grade bumping is not as rampant as all that to where it noticeably drags down the quality of the course.

How many students did your wife "help out" in order to get a good review from them?

[Blake]

Ok Blake. Universities are not glorified trade schools. I was wrong. Peace.

Ok

[Blake]

So let me get this straight. Manny is in his late 20's. He's spent most of his 20's attending college.

If you have so many issues with it, why have you spent a 1/3 of your life there?

since he doesn't really know what a hyperbole is, I'm guessing 1/2 of that 1/3 was spent in remedial courses.

[Blake]

You got one thing right. You got something else extremely wrong. Its funny to watch myths propagate around Spurstalk.

you mean myths like how universities are nothing more than glorified trade schools? yeah, that is pretty funny.

[Blake]

I do believe a college education wasnt what it once was, partly due to overcrowding, partly due to no motivation by the student to better his or herself....but I don't look at the overcrowding, and increasing qualifications for jobs as direct evidence the 4 year college education isn't what it used to be.
I see lower quality of education partly as a result of overcrowding.

I recall the overcrowding in the freshman level classes that are/were held in large auditoriums with very little student/teacher interaction.

The upper level classes are always much smaller.

[Extra Stout]

The cynic in me agrees with this, but I think it's important to note that many (most?) profs truly are committed to teaching. As 101A pointed out, the pressure to keep student retention levels high and graduate happy customers usually comes indirectly, by way of student evaluations.

They are a crude way to measure performance, but many institutions give them significant weight in the hiring and promotion processes, particularly when it comes to junior faculty positions.
I agree profs are committed to teaching, for the most part. The exceptions are the ones who are committed to research, and see teaching as this thing they have to do for their job.

Administrators, on the other hand, especially if they are political appointments... I believe the new president of Texas A&M said in not so many words that his vision was to make sure his student-customers are satisfied. In my view, this makes him prima facie incompetent, but he's a Perry crony, so that's not surprising.

[Bartleby]

Administrators, on the other hand, especially if they are political appointments... I believe the new president of Texas A&M said in not so many words that his vision was to make sure his student-customers are satisfied. In my view, this makes him prima facie incompetent, but he's a Perry crony, so that's not surprising.

True, and it's not just the high level administrators. I have a friend who was berated by her dept. chair for giving students too much work to do outside of class.

What really sucks is that the chair has been there more than two decades. She simply goes through the motions and hates it when anybody rocks the boat. My friend has a tenure-track appointment and is waiting for her next contract. It's fucked up.

[Blake]

The cynic in me agrees with this, but I think it's important to note that many (most?) profs truly are committed to teaching. As 101A pointed out, the pressure to keep student retention levels high and graduate happy customers usually comes indirectly, by way of student evaluations.

They are a crude way to measure performance, but many institutions give them significant weight in the hiring and promotion processes, particularly when it comes to junior faculty positions.

Not just that, but i think everyone can agree that not all institutions are equal.

I think we can all agree that Harvard > UTSA > ITT Tech

[MannyIsGod]

I agree profs are committed to teaching, for the most part. The exceptions are the ones who are committed to research, and see teaching as this thing they have to do for their job.

Administrators, on the other hand, especially if they are political appointments... I believe the new president of Texas A&M said in not so many words that his vision was to make sure his student-customers are satisfied. In my view, this makes him prima facie incompetent, but he's a Perry crony, so that's not surprising.

You need look no further than the actions of Ricardo Romo and how he's trying to increase the prestige of UTSA. Hooray for commuter school football.

[101A]

I have no doubt about professors looking out for themselves before the students but I think the grade bumping is not as rampant as all that to where it noticeably drags down the quality of the course.

How many students did your wife "help out" in order to get a good review from them?

I should link her "ratemyprofessor" page; but we're not quite THAT familiar on here; in short; she doesn't.

What she does do is go above and beyond with assistance to those students who never should have been in the class in the first place. 2-3 study sessions prior to tests, etc....but still a lot of the idiot students don't come to those.

Her reviews from her Freshman classes suck bad because she DOESN'T play the game that way - she comes up for tenure next year; only then will we find out how much her idealism costs. It's not all professors, but those who are having to support a family on that job have to do what they have to do. My wife has some flexibility in that regard.

[101A]

I agree profs are committed to teaching, for the most part. The exceptions are the ones who are committed to research, and see teaching as this thing they have to do for their job.

The vast majority of Universities have a very small research component; and the profs are heavily loaded down with teaching loads; the notable exceptions are the large state schools (UT, A&M, TTECH) - of which in Texas there are a preponderance - kind of a lopsided view of what exists other places - HOWEVER, for a dedicated student, those research profs are vast resources of knowledge and ability; getting at it, as you hint at, is another story.


Administrators, on the other hand, especially if they are political appointments... I believe the new president of Texas A&M said in not so many words that his vision was to make sure his student-customers are satisfied. In my view, this makes him prima facie incompetent, but he's a Perry crony, so that's not surprising.

I was network admin at TAMU in '95; in Vet Medicine. Set up workstations for 2 separate State Senators who were put in place as administrator of this or that - nice offices (I assume pretty good salaries as well). Couldn't tell WTF they actually DID.

[101A]

Not just that, but i think everyone can agree that not all institutions are equal.

I think we can all agree that Harvard > UTSA > ITT Tech

The difference is generally % of high quality profs; Harvard, obviously, is going to have a great many.

The secret is that EVERY school I have seen has at least a few. Could be a local guy who made it big, but wanted to move back home; or a family with a top notch prof. liked a specific school district a University happened to be near - point being, the true value in higher education is at some of the bigger "party" schools - check up on the professors, look at their grant and publication histories; there are some real studs hiding out all over the country; take THOSE professors, and you get them for $.05 on the $1.00. Now, of course, you might have a lower GPA, from a school with a not so great reputation; but you can have a great education, which will serve you better.

I have hired many people; never once asked for a transcript.

[Blake]

I should link her "ratemyprofessor" page; but we're not quite THAT familiar on here; in short; she doesn't.

What she does do is go above and beyond with assistance to those students who never should have been in the class in the first place. 2-3 study sessions prior to tests, etc....but still a lot of the idiot students don't come to those.

Her reviews from her Freshman classes suck bad because she DOESN'T play the game that way - she comes up for tenure next year; only then will we find out how much her idealism costs. It's not all professors, but those who are having to support a family on that job have to do what they have to do. My wife has some flexibility in that regard.

I can't really say with any real certainty, but I would think that the administration is well aware of the fact that flunking students most likely will give bad evaluations out of spite.

I would also think (hope) that it is taken into account when sorting through those evaluations when an administrator is evaluating a professor.

[Blake]

The difference is generally % of high quality profs; Harvard, obviously, is going to have a great many.

The secret is that EVERY school I have seen has at least a few. Could be a local guy who made it big, but wanted to move back home; or a family with a top notch prof. liked a specific school district a University happened to be near - point being, the true value in higher education is at some of the bigger "party" schools - check up on the professors, look at their grant and publication histories; there are some real studs hiding out all over the country; take THOSE professors, and you get them for $.05 on the $1.00. Now, of course, you might have a lower GPA, from a school with a not so great reputation; but you can have a great education, which will serve you better.

no doubt.

There is also no doubt that you will have a high percentage of exceptional professors throught a college career at Harvard.

You basically have to get lucky at UTSA.


I have hired many people; never once asked for a transcript.

if you are at a law firm and you have to choose between two basically equal candidates, except that one went to Harvard Law while one went to UT Law, who do you choose?

Putting school allegiances aside, chances are, Harvard Law guy gets the job.

[RandomGuy]

You have no idea. One of CHIEF barometers used to judge my wife's "performance" is student evaluations. Near the end of a semester students are given a note card with 3 or 4 categories, and a 5 number scale for each. ALL students responses are given equal weight - the senior major with a 3.9 vs. the Freshman whose about to flunk out, and this is his/her parting shot. What is a professor to do to make sure they don't get excoriated by those evaluations? Make tests easier; give extra credit; hell, just bump the grades up a letter each. Self-preservation being what it is, many professor do just that. Those that don't get tough reviews; and chastisement from their dept./dean.

Last semester I helped my wife grade some Freshman Chemistry tests; on the first page she had a series of metric conversions for the kids to do; fewer than 40% could convert from cm to mm. THOSE students got to evaluate her.

When I went to school, the professor, the school, hell everyone as far as I was concerned, could give two shits what I thought of the professor.

How then do colleges figure out which of their professors are actually teaching?

I had some rather poor teachers, as has my wife. Should a college simply ignore the fact that the majority of the students taking a particular course are failing? How does one determine whether it is the students or the professor?

Not trying to be difficult, but merely trying to point out the other side of the issue.

[101A]

How then do colleges figure out which of their professors are actually teaching?

Some colleges don't appear to care (seriously). They are looking for tuition $$ - and to meet enrollment goals; flunking students is not a good way to do that - tying professor rankings to student evaluations, which are to a large degree tied to grades, however, helps make sure the professors aren't chasing off the clients.


I had some rather poor teachers, as has my wife. Should a college simply ignore the fact that the majority of the students taking a particular course are failing? How does one determine whether it is the students or the professor?

That can be challenging, frankly - but to a large degree, in college, the onus of learning ought to be on the student; there is a reason professors have NEVER taken classes on HOW to teach - the ADULTS they are dealing with ought to do the reading, be able to pay attention to the lecture, STUDY - and learn the subject matter. That was understood when I was in school - however, now, to a large degree the students EXPECT much more; powerpoint presentations, lively lectures - hands on this and that; basically it is the professor's job to KEEP them interested. Also, they expect the lecture to be posted on line, and often lecture notes as well. They expect study guides prior to tests. If a professor knows their shit, and does all of that, I am comfortable in hanging poor performance on the students.

What we have begun to recognize is the system is become seriously broken. When the lackadaisical professors teach the pre-req classes, give lots of "A's" and pass the kids along; they get seriosly bitter when they stumble into my wife's Biochem 301 class, having been passed through high school, then through the first couple of years of college, and are met with a class that is merciless. This class begins to tie ALL of your Chemistry, Biology and Calculus together in one big intellectual orgy (yes my children are all smarter than me) - and these (up to this point happy go lucky 3.8 average) students get flattened. This one seperates those that have a shot at med/grad school from those that don't; it should happen sooner, IMO - by then kids are Juniors, and think they are O.K; only to learn they aren't so much.


Not trying to be difficult, but merely trying to point out the other side of the issue.

:toast

[101A]

no doubt.

There is also no doubt that you will have a high percentage of exceptional professors throught a college career at Harvard.

You basically have to get lucky at UTSA.

If you do your homework, it doesn't have to be luck; Just search the last names, check out their publications - note where they are from; you can figure out the pedigree of someone pretty quick (where they got THEIR education, and who they studied under). Also check out rate my professor; gravitate to those profs that consistently get "hard as shit" by their names.




if you are at a law firm and you have to choose between two basically equal candidates, except that one went to Harvard Law while one went to UT Law, who do you choose?

Putting school allegiances aside, chances are, Harvard Law guy gets the job.

University of Texas Law in Texas probably has a leg up, frankly - hell of a Law School; St. Mary's would be a better example, but point taken.

[Blake]

If you do your homework, it doesn't have to be luck; Just search the last names, check out their publications - note where they are from; you can figure out the pedigree of someone pretty quick (where they got THEIR education, and who they studied under). Also check out rate my professor; gravitate to those profs that consistently get "hard as shit" by their names.

if you have the money and resources to pick your school, that's great.....

but UTSA is currently the only public 4 year university here and once you get into the upper levels in many degree programs, you really don't have a choice in the professor you're going to have if you need to take a certain course.

[RandomGuy]

Some colleges don't appear to care (seriously). They are looking for tuition $$ - and to meet enrollment goals; flunking students is not a good way to do that - tying professor rankings to student evaluations, which are to a large degree tied to grades, however, helps make sure the professors aren't chasing off the clients.

That can be challenging, frankly - but to a large degree, in college, the onus of learning ought to be on the student; there is a reason professors have NEVER taken classes on HOW to teach - the ADULTS they are dealing with ought to do the reading, be able to pay attention to the lecture, STUDY - and learn the subject matter. That was understood when I was in school - however, now, to a large degree the students EXPECT much more; powerpoint presentations, lively lectures - hands on this and that; basically it is the professor's job to KEEP them interested. Also, they expect the lecture to be posted on line, and often lecture notes as well. They expect study guides prior to tests. If a professor knows their shit, and does all of that, I am comfortable in hanging poor performance on the students.

What we have begun to recognize is the system is become seriously broken. When the lackadaisical professors teach the pre-req classes, give lots of "A's" and pass the kids along; they get seriosly bitter when they stumble into my wife's Biochem 301 class, having been passed through high school, then through the first couple of years of college, and are met with a class that is merciless. This class begins to tie ALL of your Chemistry, Biology and Calculus together in one big intellectual orgy (yes my children are all smarter than me) - and these (up to this point happy go lucky 3.8 average) students get flattened. This one seperates those that have a shot at med/grad school from those that don't; it should happen sooner, IMO - by then kids are Juniors, and think they are O.K; only to learn they aren't so much.



:toast

I am RandomGuy and I concur 100% with this post.

I will say this jives with a lot of what my wife has encountered: people expecting shit spoon-fed to them.

I occasionally spend a lunch hour answering questions on Yahoo Answers (RandomGuy from Texas, so sue me for unoriginality) and am surprised/disapppointed by the amount of obvious homework questions that are there.

If you answer these questions with something that just points them to the answer by telling them the process without actually giving it to the asker, you get punked when it comes time to the asker choosing the "best answer" in favor of the person who just gave them the answer and no explanation how they got that.

THAT said:

There are professors who are just shitty teachers.

One can expect adults to learn and study, but if the tests that determine the grade were written by a professor who just made up the test off the top of their head, and never quite taught or indicated to the students the specific information on the test then you can get a situation where the test material is nowhere in either the lectures or the textbooks, and no matter how much diligence the student does, they will not do well.

[RandomGuy]

I will also relate that she has had one professor that literally spoon-fed the entire test at an after-hours voluntary review.

The professor quite literally went through the review item by item, and she found out the next day that the professor had obviously just read through the test line by line.

There were still people that failed. She is in one of those "party" schools, btw, and is rather appalled, as I was in my classes, at the amount of parentally-supplied tuition money that appears to be wasted.

[101A]

I will also relate that she has had one professor that literally spoon-fed the entire test at an after-hours voluntary review.

The professor quite literally went through the review item by item, and she found out the next day that the professor had obviously just read through the test line by line.

There were still people that failed. She is in one of those "party" schools, btw, and is rather appalled, as I was in my classes, at the amount of parentally-supplied tuition money that appears to be wasted.

:rollin

Things are the same everywhere.

Fortunately, if my kids are going to piss away college, it won't cost me anything.

[RandomGuy]

:rollin

Things are the same everywhere.

Fortunately, if my kids are going to piss away college, it won't cost me anything.

I am going to advise my boys to work/travel for a few years before starting college and get all the partying out of their system first.

They can go straight to college if they want to, and I will provide matching funds for whatever they earn, but the second that I see the first "C" I will pull any support and that money will not come back.

The military is generally a good place to grow up for a few years after high school, or at least it used to be, before Iraq.

Something tells me that we will still be around central/southeast asia by the time my 5 year old is eligble.

[Winehole23]

Honestly, do you have to go to some sort of reverse college to get this dumb? One where you take courses specifically designed to make you sound mentally challenged?US public schools, for example.

[DarkReign]

US public schools, for example.

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://i.pbase.com/o4/98/583898/1/63713939.VPwOC7GO.rimshot.gif&usg=AFQjCNFuzeY8as1DWobBP5cvJR_4vLecZg

Try the fish and dont forget to tip your waitress...ya-ooooo!

(doesnt make your statement less true, however)

[Winehole23]

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://i.pbase.com/o4/98/583898/1/63713939.VPwOC7GO.rimshot.gif&usg=AFQjCNFuzeY8as1DWobBP5cvJR_4vLecZg

Try the fish and dont forget to tip your waitress...ya-ooooo!

Ah, thank you. I'll be here all week...

[Winehole23]

if i wanted lessons in how to elevate the hissy fit and the bitch rant to high art you'd be my huckelberry. You need the lessons.


However Christ and Buddah were both simple and plain spoken and they were able to heal minds bodies and souls, and elevate the connciousness of multitudes, whereas your ability seems to articulate with keeness, and great skill a mind full of shit.I would always expect to lose in the comparison. You're not too far off IMO, even though you're playing with loaded dice.

[LnGrrrR]

why is it a fallacy? maybe in some cases they are wise, wisdom is not measured in linguistic and grammatical muscle. And in some cases, you're right, some people are just lazy.

Wise people know there is always more to learn.

[LnGrrrR]

What we have begun to recognize is the system is become seriously broken. When the lackadaisical professors teach the pre-req classes, give lots of "A's" and pass the kids along; they get seriosly bitter when they stumble into my wife's Biochem 301 class, having been passed through high school, then through the first couple of years of college, and are met with a class that is merciless.
:toast

Sounds like politicians who vote pork for their constituents.