Human Nature

[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 ed 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 ing 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 up Utopia...but it has spread a bunch of stupid ing 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 . 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 compe ion 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 ins utes 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 ins utes 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 ins utes 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 ins utes 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.

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]

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..._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..._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/st...8/daily56.html
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3030
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/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..._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 ins utes 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.