0
   

Diversity of Everything but Thought

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 12:19 pm
Quote:
If you did demographics among Republicans and Democrats, would you say a higher percentage of registered GOP members or members of the Democrat party have some college or college degrees? Think carefully about the constituencies here before you answer.


Why don't we do demographics amongst College Graduates and find out if there are more Dems or GOP members who actually hold degrees and the percentages of such? Because I think you know exactly who that would favor, regardless of who is Registered for the Party and who isn't.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 12:27 pm
Go for it. But you have to include all college graduates, not just those from one or two left dominated universities. Of those who I know to be in college now on the A2K political forum, the righties seem to outnumber the lefties. (That alone is rather remarkable considering that the young tend to be more liberal than those who are older with more experience.)

Still the demographic makeup of a political party has to include everybody doesn't it? Both those who went to college and those who didn't? So if the college educated tilt substantially left, which I seriously doubt, you also have to include all those highschool drop outs signed up to be democrats. What motivates them? And do the Democrats or the GOP have more of them?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 12:34 pm
The truely educated are 100% anarchists. I completed the 8th grade and have, since then, always been an anarchist. Most democrats barely make it thru the 6th grade and republicans seldom complete preschool (republicans do well in bible colleges though) now, if the subject is conservatives vs liberals we got an entirely different ballgame to content with.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 03:41 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Um, many of the Conservatives and professed Republicans do EXACTLY that.

I think so becuase it has been going on for pretty much my whole life.

You know this as well as I do, why the willful denseness?

Cycloptichorn

No they don't! Only a few act like that .... act like the Democrat's Dr. Dean (i.e., Howard Dean), Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, of course John Kerry, just to name a few.

Surely you know this as well as I do. Why the stupid bigotry?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 03:49 pm
dyslexia wrote:
The truely educated are 100% anarchists. I completed the 8th grade and have, since then, always been an anarchist. Most democrats barely make it thru the 6th grade and republicans seldom complete preschool (republicans do well in bible colleges though) now, if the subject is conservatives vs liberals we got an entirely different ballgame to content with.


Which of the following definitions fit your kind of anarchist? If none do, then please define what kind of anarchist you are.

www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: an·ar·chist
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kist, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : one who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
2 : one who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
- anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic /"a-n&r-'kis-tik, -(")när-/ adjective

Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-"ki-z&m, -"när-
Function: noun
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 04:06 pm
Well ican coming from you who has made a habit of making up words and their definitions I am a bit surprised by your question but there are the non-conformists who make no conscious effort to not conform, but do so out of their essential nature. They shun joining groups because they understand, innately, the danger inherent in group "thinking." (Which too often in history spawns "mob mentality" which in turn spawns evils such as riots, lynching, wars, and religion.) This type of non-conformist requires a rational, valid reason before she or he will engage in a group / social behavior: they are therefore generally loathed, misunderstood, reviled, and even abused by the majority (i.e., the conformists).
(It is hardly worth adding that nearly 100% of conformists believe they are non-conformists. The tiny fraction of conformists who recognize and accept their conformity are to be praised; the others are to be pitied for their lack of self-knowledge.)
What happens when the latter type of non-conformist runs up against Organized Conformity (i.e., GOVERNMENT)? When this happens, the non-conformist has no choice but to be an anarchist, out of self-defense. I consider it a self-evident fact that abusive government engenders anarchy: it is the natural response to tyranny. It is also, I think, the appropriate response.
The chief problem facing the non-conforming anarchist is that the Government almost never understands the fact that it is abusive and therefore deserves criticism and opposition: the individuals steering the juggernaut of Government do not understand that the system they build, enforce, and defend is often abusive, debasing, insulting, enslaving, tyrannical, and contrary to ethical, decent, rational behavior. Government, being a product of mob mentality, is fundamentally anti-individuality. There can be no formal redress, rectification, or remedy by the Government because the Government does not comprehend the fact that it is abusive and dehumanizing, and therefore sees no reason to cease its abuse.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 04:18 pm
Quote:
"Man shall not be free until the last general is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

Voltaire
Quote:
It is in the nature of tyranny to deride the will of the people as the voice of the mob, and to denounce the cry for freedom as the roar of anarchy.
William Safire

A man on a camel rode through miles of the sun-drenched desert searching for some sign of life. His supplies were running low when his camel died. Now on foot, he desperately sought refuge from the heat, and, most importantly, a source for water. Suddenly, he came across a vendor in the middle of the desert.
"Thank God I found you!" the man cried. "Please help me. I'm in dire need of some water."
"Well," said the vendor, "I don't have any water. But would you like to buy one of these fine ties."
"What am I going to do with a tie?" the man asked.
"That's what I'm selling sir. If you don't like it, I can't help you."
The man left the vendor and walked on for many more miles, praying each minute that he would find refuge from the scorching sun. His eyes squinted a bunch of times when he came across a restaurant in the distance. Unable to comprehend a restaurant located in the middle of the desert, he assumed the place was a mirage, but decided to check it out anyway.
As he approached the door, his mouth opened in amazement, seeing that the place actually existed. The doorman stopped him before he entered. "Excuse me sir," the doorman said, "But you can't come in here without a tie!"
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 04:27 pm
Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.
Recorded history is largely an account of the crimes and disasters committed by banal little men at the levers of imperial machines. No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets. Liberty cannot be guaranteed by law. Nor by anything else except the resolution of free citizens to defend their liberties. Terrorism: deadly violence against humans and other living things, usually conducted by government against its own people.

So what do you think ican? Do I fit your definition or not? If not I may be able to alter my way of thinking tofit your definition but I wouldn't count on it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 04:31 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Well ican coming from you who has made a habit of making up words and their definitions I am a bit surprised by your question but there are the non-conformists who make no conscious effort to not conform, but do so out of their essential nature. They shun joining groups because they understand, innately, the danger inherent in group "thinking."
Well I'll be damned! I think I'm a non-conforming non-conformist.

(Which too often in history spawns "mob mentality" which in turn spawns evils such as riots, lynching, wars, and religion.) This type of non-conformist requires a rational, valid reason before she or he will engage in a group / social behavior: they are therefore generally loathed, misunderstood, reviled, and even abused by the majority (i.e., the conformists).
(It is hardly worth adding that nearly 100% of conformists believe they are non-conformists. The tiny fraction of conformists who recognize and accept their conformity are to be praised; the others are to be pitied for their lack of self-knowledge.)
What happens when the latter type of non-conformist runs up against Organized Conformity (i.e., GOVERNMENT)? When this happens, the non-conformist has no choice but to be an anarchist, out of self-defense. I consider it a self-evident fact that abusive government engenders anarchy: it is the natural response to tyranny. It is also, I think, the appropriate response.
For a non-confroming non-conformist like me it engenders nothing more than the pursuit of a government that secures the same rules for everyone including all the members of the government.

The chief problem facing the non-conforming anarchist is that the Government almost never understands the fact that it is abusive and therefore deserves criticism and opposition: the individuals steering the juggernaut of Government do not understand that the system they build, enforce, and defend is often abusive, debasing, insulting, enslaving, tyrannical, and contrary to ethical, decent, rational behavior. Government, being a product of mob mentality, is fundamentally anti-individuality. There can be no formal redress, rectification, or remedy by the Government because the Government does not comprehend the fact that it is abusive and dehumanizing, and therefore sees no reason to cease its abuse.
No remedy by the government does not mean there is no remedying government. The major problem is getting sovereign citizens to act like sovereign citizens and refuse to comply with laws that reduce their sovereignty over their own selves. Too many citizens seek special "privileges and immunities" for themselves that deny equal "privileges and immunities" for all. They thereby seek to enhance their own individual sovereignty at the expense of the sovereignties of the rest.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 04:38 pm
Yeppers ican, you said a mouthful! I do need to refill my glass of lemonade (and grab a dictionary) and read it again. You got a couple of them 25 cent words in there and I have to look them up right quick sos I knows what your saying, fer sure I do.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 04:53 pm
dyslexia wrote:


...

So what do you think ican? Do I fit your definition or not? If not I may be able to alter my way of thinking tofit your definition but I wouldn't count on it.


I like the way you think.

I think I don't want to mess with your definition, because I also think an anarchist should be free to define him or herself any way he or she chooses.

I don't know whether you conform to the dictionary definition of anarchist, but frankly I don't care whether you do or not.

I don't know whether you conform to my definition of an adamsite or not, but now after reading your posts here I don't want to struggle with that exercise any longer. The main reason for my previous resort to my own--you should pardon the expression--non-conforming definitions is because I no longer can be confident that I understand what the popularly used definitions for democrat, republican, conservative, liberal, progressive, leftist or rightist actually mean.

I now think I understand what you mean by anarchist and non-conformist and that's good enough for me.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 05:00 pm
works for me.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 05:09 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Yeppers ican, you said a mouthful! I do need to refill my glass of lemonade (and grab a dictionary) and read it again. You got a couple of them 25 cent words in there and I have to look them up right quick sos I knows what your saying, fer sure I do.


Our Forefathers wrote:
Constitution of the USA
Article IV
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.


Never mind the damn dictionary. What did the adopters of the Constitution mean by privileges and immunities?

Privilege: something I can do.
Immunity: a penalty I don't have to pay.

By the way, those words were only 13 cent words back in 1789.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 08:51 am
I would expand those definitions though Ican:
"Privilege" is something you can do by virtue of rule, law, regulation, policy, etc. and, as such it can be revoked.

Immunity: a penalty you don't have to pay. That's pretty good. Again you might add...'by virtue of rule, law, regulation, policy, etc.' and, as such it can be revoked.

Both privilege and immunity are frequently mischaracterized as 'rights' which I define as anything that does not require participation by any other.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 08:55 am
damn it all, here I was just a hoping for an argument on my being an anarchist and all.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 08:32 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I would expand those definitions though Ican:
"Privilege" is something you can do by virtue of rule, law, regulation, policy, etc. and, as such it can be revoked.

Immunity: a penalty you don't have to pay. That's pretty good. Again you might add...'by virtue of rule, law, regulation, policy, etc.' and, as such it can be revoked.

Both privilege and immunity are frequently mischaracterized as 'rights' which I define as anything that does not require participation by any other.

Foxfyre, thank you. Your addition, "by virtue of rule, law, regulation, policy, etc. and, as such it can be revoked" is very important for complete understanding of why privileges and immunities must by law be established by law equally for everyone, and when by law one or more of either is revoked by law, they must be revoked equally for everyone.

In my opinion, Article IV. Section 2. (first sentence) of our Constitution, the "Supreme law of the Land," is being continually violated. Here it is again for those who may have missed it:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

That cannot be accomplished unless all US citizens have equal privileges and immunities. They do not. For example, I am immune to higher than a 15% income tax rate. Many aren't so immune. I am privileged to have others supplement my income with wealth transfer payments via the social security agency. Many aren't so priviliged.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 08:39 pm
dyslexia wrote:
damn it all, here I was just a hoping for an argument on my being an anarchist and all.


Laughing

Ok, wise guy! You want an argument about you're being an anarchist....here's one. You don't have the privilege of ignoring all the cockamamie laws of our land without suffering the same penalties I do if I ignore them. You are no more immune to those penalties than I am.

So there!

Hope no more Razz
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Jun, 2005 08:16 am
I ran across this article this week and after considering the writer's thesis, I think I may be incorrect that it is mostly the conservative student who is most disadvantaged by liberal bias on American faculties. According to this point of view, conservatives are not being brainwashed or adversely affected in any permanent way (though I remain convinced that a complete education includes exposure to all points of view.)

This writer says it is the liberal student who most suffers from the current lack of ideological diversity. I had not thought of it from that perspective, but he may have a valid point.

At the very least, it is interesting.

(Emphasis mine)

Issue date: 11.17.2004

Liberal bias hurts liberals
by Will Phung

Like so many other universities in the Northeast and on the West Coast, NYU maintains a vastly liberal student population. However, while many take that fact for granted, what most do not know is that the liberal domination in university life in blue states extends past the student body.

Even though the left has traditionally held that university faculties are a diverse lot, the truth is that conservative thought is all but absent from the ranks of those college professors. A recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that more than nine out of 10 college professors identify as liberal.

The natural response to this revelation is that conservative students are stymied in higher education because there are almost no like-minded professors with whom they can converse and explore issues. But the other, less discussed side of the coin is that liberal students are not being challenged in their beliefs and are losing out on part of their education as a result.

Certainly, liberal dominance of the university scene has some repercussions for right-minded students. In fact, according to a survey of adult Americans by The Chronicle, half, including 30 percent of those who considered themselves liberal, agreed that there is a liberal bias leaking into the teaching at universities. The left may try claim that a professor's political tendencies do not affect the work being taught, but the country is beginning to see this theory as the lie that it is.

Yet this is really not as damaging as it sounds. With this new report, conservatives around the country are sure to rail against the indoctrination of the youth into the bizarre, hippie leftist culture. If the recent presidential election exit polls are any indicator, though, this indoctrination has not been occurring.

In fact, those who graduated from the liberal college realm and went into the real world instead of to grad school voted more for President Bush than for loser Kerry by a six-point margin. Despite being taught predominantly by liberal-minded professors, conservative students do not seem to be having their opinions forcibly changed.

While it may be true that some conservative students feel intimidated by such a vast left wing leaning on campus, those who are not afraid to voice their unpopular, right opinions could actually be benefiting from this liberal bias. By debating their values with both other students and professors who do not agree, conservative students are being intellectually challenged and will come out smarter for it.

Chronicle writer Mark Bauerlein, who reported on the dominance of liberals on universities campuses, calls this the "ordinary evolution of opinion." Integral to this evolution is debating ideas with those who hold opposing ideas. Far from being detrimental to conservative students, the liberal dominance at universities helps them by providing an ample ground for invigorating debate.

Unfortunately for liberal students, they are not afforded the same opportunity while at college.
When almost every professor and much of the student body shares the same leftist views, liberal students do not have as many chances as their conservative counterparts to spar intellectually with other-minded people; they cannot as readily participate in the evolution of opinion.

What this breeds is a generation of liberal university students who have never had their views challenged by professors. Many leftists mock conservatives from red states as being ignorant, yet it is those conservatives who are being intellectually challenged about their values while the liberals can remain complacent.


Changing the liberal landscape will be a daunting endeavor, if it is undertaken at all. The solution is to hire more conservative professors, of course, but this is not as easy as it sounds. Many conservative intelligentsia have grown disenfranchised with the university system and have given up trying to be professors at all. It will not be easy to court them back, and it is not evident that universities want to lure them back to begin with.

This is where students, especially liberal students, must step in. While it may be more comfortable to be in a liberal haven, leftist students must make it known that they need conservative professors to challenge their views and engage them in the type of discourse from which conservative students are now benefiting. •

http://www.nyunews.com/opinion/columnists/8347.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 02:28:29