Diversity of Everything but Thought

After enough students, such as the one who's story is excerpted below, have had to fight battles they should NOT be subjected to by cretinous liberal savages, marauding the halls of academia, it may suffice to go to the Ombudsman.

re fixed ideas...

Quote:

No, that's not "Neanderthalism."

No, it isn't. It's dogmatism. One couldn't accurately use the term neanderthalism to describe the last or the new pope - both scholars and sophisticated thinkers. But one could certainly accuse them of allegiance to certain key notions which they will not allow diminished under any circumstances whatsoever (eg resurrection, incorrectness or even evilness of any other faith, etc).

Unwavering allegiance to an idea or set of ideas is not dogmatism. If it were, you would be, perhaps, the most dogmatic poster on A2K. (Come to think of it, you may be the most dogmatic poster on A2K -- no, that's unkind - I take it back) But then Liberals tend to consistently delude themselves with the conceit that they are entirely open to the influence of new ideas and perspectives.

In order for the allegiance to an idea to be dogmatic, it must entail arrogance. You are certainly free to opine that John Paul and Bendict are/were men of arrogance, but I beg to differ.

It is not surprising that the post-modernist might find conviction among the chief sins of Man (or Pope). Ironically, I have yet to come into contact with a post-modernist who does not have his or her share of absolute convictions. I continue to search for a true moral relativist, but have yet to find one. Certainly none have shown themselves on A2K.

Quote:

A mixed bag indeed, and yet Krugman focuses on theological forces. If you don't share his bias, so be it, and yet you have introduced the "on the other hand" device to "suggest" that there is very definitely a threat from the "radical edges of christian theology." Without doubt there is a faction which couches the discussion in the extreme, but by your own words this is a "radical edge." I could be wrong, but "radical edge" suggest, to me, a fringe, minority element. While the "radical edge" needs to be observed and guarded against I, somehow, take your argument to extend beyond the fringe.

Focus on theology, particularly certain versions of extant american theology, is valid. We acknowledge the dangers inherent in, for example, a Shiite government in Iraq which would wish to place theocrats in power and form up government policies and laws which are dictated by a particular version of Muslim interpretation. We acknowledge the dangers inherent in Saudi religious schools. The intersection of faith and public education or government is dangerous. Fringe groups do not always stay in the fringes. Extremists can gain power. See if you can tap in tonight to the Frist/Dobson travelling circus.

Sorry, but this is so much tripe. Yes, we can all agree on the dangers inherent in true Theocracies in such places as Iran, and the potential danger in a theocracy in Iraq, but it is a Herculean leap to find the same reason for concern in the US. That fringe groups do not always remain fringe groups is, as I have indicated, reason to observe and guard against them, but it is not, by any means, supportive of the notion that a Theocracy has either wormed its way into American governance, or seriously threatens to do so.

There are plenty of fringe groups on the Left. Should we engage in policy formulation to confront and defend against them? There are, in fact, Eco-Terrorists. Should we, therefore, fear the environmental movement?

If you tapped into Frist's comments, you will know that he never mentioned the word "faith" even once. Personally, I think he was too sensitive to the knee-jerk, partisan criticism of his Democratic colleagues.
I have no problem, at all, with an elected official speaking on issues of "faith."

I also am not so sensitive about arguing that, in general, the voices of the Left are not only not voices of faith (in any form) but anti-religion. I do not, however, argue that anti-religion voices are voices of evil. However there is nothing more pathetic than Liberal leaders trying to assert that they are, in fact, the voices of Faith.

Recently, one of the Leaders of The Left (I think it was Nancy Pelosi) laid claim to a Democratic faith based philosophy that encompassed a laundry list of "Christian" values. However the only one that rang true was the one that doesn't get all that much play in the Bible -- "Community"

Now I would agree that a strong sense of community is an important component of a healthy society, but it does tend to focus on the collective versus the individual, and herein lies the essence of the debate between the Right and the Left. Should Man be judged by his individual choices or actions, or should judgment be reserved for the larger society which, in one way or the other, fashions the choices and actions of each individual?

One perspective demands individual accountability, while the other defuses it through notions of a collective entity that has a greater influence on the actions of the individual than his or her own conscious.

Quote:

That Horowitz is a Republican Party "operative," however, is ridiculous. Do you believe that Krugman is a Democratic Party "operative?" (E.J. Dionne is, without question, a Dem operative, but not Krugman).

Sigh. Finn, you have to go to a bit more research work here. Compare the affiliation/employment histories of Horowitz and Dionne. Compare what organizations they each might have started or managed and check then to see where their operational funds originate.

"Sigh" -- Can there be an affectation that engenders a greater degree of wincing?

Usually you are able to pick up on a comment made in jest. Dionne is no more an operative of the Democrat Party than Horowitz, despite the fact that his columns strongly suggest otherwise.

Arguing that Horowitz is an operative of the Republican Party is simply paranoid nonsense.

Is the horse's ass, Al Franken, an operative of the Democrat Party? I don't think so, and yet I despise the man.

"Operative" is a loaded term used in over the top rhetoric.

Quote:

One can only wonder why blatham finds it necessary to spew such bilious comments in your direction fox.

Perhaps the three of us can move into a group hug if you use the simple device of considering me a liberal version of John Bolton.

Finn Writes

Quote:

Whatever you may or may not be, you are not a simpleton.

Well, thank you but yes sometimes I am. As a strongly extraverted intuitive type, given incomplete criteria, I tend to go with the version that seems to makes the most sense and then have to backtrack or amend as new information comes in. And I put way too much faith in people to be fair and reasonable sometimes.

Please spare us the coy response. You are not a simpleton.

Quote:

Gosh, could it be that the masculine blatham is dismissive of the feminine foxfyre? Is gender bullying evidenced?

Who knows?

One of my more dogmatic stances is a conviction of the impropriety of judging undeclared motives of others.

Psst - That comment was for blatham's benefit.

Quote:

PS: I have high regard for blatham.

I did too until I found him to be cruelly cutting even as he demonstrated the most grievous offenses of which he was accusing me. I post from liberal, conservative, and everything in between sources to support my views on A2K, and he posts only from clearly liberal sources, but according to him, I'm the one who is deficient in my sources.

Taking very little of the A2K blather personally, I still hold blatham in high regard, but given that he seems to have a bee in his Mountie bonnet about you, I can understand why you might not.

Quote:

He is a fuzzy headed liberal, but he strives for clarity, and his intellect is impressive. Like all of us, he is subject to error (tough for a Liberal to acknowledge, but so be it), but his occassional conceit casts a shadowed light upon him.

How can one strive for clarity when clearly expressing contempt for any other point of view? That I and other conservatives have posted unbiased data showing the disparity between liberal and conservative ideology among most university faculties and have backed those up with personal experience and opinion of others including educators is somehow sinister to Mr. Blatham. He has to protect the world from people like me whether he does it with clarity or not.

I completely understand why you may not agree with my assessment.

Quote:

Blatham will cut me slack, but that's because he holds open the hope that he'll get into my pants some day.

:::::cough::::::

God Bless You


Blatham writes

Quote:

Perhaps the three of us can move into a group hug if you use the simple device of considering me a liberal version of John Bolton.

I would just like to consider you as one of those rare liberals who reasons and thinks. However, one needs to reciprocate respect. I regretted very much when you decided to end our friendship.

Don't take it so personally. He likes to think of himself as a provocateur. A subtle and sophisticated provocateur, but one nevertheless.

Lash writes

Quote:

Foxy, if this is already here in the preceding pages I haven't read, just let me know, and I'll delete it.

That piece or one very similar to it has been posted, but it can't be posted enough, Lash. Please don't delete it.

And now it's to the showers for me and off to teach my class whcih interestingly today will focus on the resistance to change during the English Reformation.

Oooh, an academic! Funny that your perspective on academia is so quickly dismissed by blatham et al. The anecdotal evidence, as respects this topic, of a New Guinea Headhunter might be immaterial, but that of a academic?

dyslexia wrote:

I had this professor one time, a very well known professor at that, and he was some kinda weirdo liberal radical. Anyway we spent most of our class time pouring sand into craniums of long dead nekid apes. Well, this one time right there in the classroom he wondered aloud (everyone could hear him) he said "I wonder if we would have difference results if we used grains of rice instead of sand?" Well, right off I knew I was never voting conservative again, I was that influenced.

LMAO.

EXACTLY the book you three need. And by all means, continue to stay away from anything remotely scientific or academic (obviously). Life is a complicated thing and there is no sense at all in doing anything which might further discomfit.

I'm sure you'll figure out quickly enough why it is pointless to continue the discussion.

Please don't tease us so.

Lash and Fox,

Your personal experiences and that of your children mean nothing at all in this discussion, because there is no evidence whatsoever (as you refuse to provide any) that you aren't bold-face liars. I don't believe a single word of your 'personal accounts.' Once again, we have retreated to the position of "This is how I FEEL about Liberals," as you haven't provided any real, yaknow, evidence to support your position.

Fair enough, but now we all can expect that you will never venture an opinion on an A2K thread without scientific evidence to support it.

The fact that you can't admit/figure out that you haven't provided any real evidence robs you of the credibility that you would need to hold up your side of the argument. Perhaps you should go back to school.

Anecdotal evidence cannot prove a general thesis, but it is not to be dismissed unless you truly contend that Lash and Fox are liars. Do you?


Cycloptichorn

The first target of the autocrat or tyrant is, almost always, the universities.

Tyrants: Foxfyre, mysteyman, finn

Tools of Tyrants: Fox, MMan, finn.

Just when I thought I could not wince more (see "Sigh") I find myself confronted with this ridiculous rhetoric.

It simply will not do, in the view of such political animals, to have ideas running about or discourse engaged in which might work at odds to their political power. It is a pretty sure way to spot the bad guys (along with their desire to control, through intimidation or ownership, the news media, and with their desire to wrestle independent institutions such as the courts under their thumb). Singularity of viewpoint - with authority vested only the themselves - is the goal.

Acme True Belief Cerebral Ointment ... you too can become impervious to rain, soot, rust, microbes, cosmic radiation and the real world.

Setanta wrote:

This entire thread is floated upon "weigtless" evidence . . . say, are we in zero g ? ! ? ! ?

That is your opinion.