Florida to end "leftist totalitarianism" by "dictator profs"

Ticomaya wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
I thought this was interesting"

http://www.alternet.org/story/21715/

Quote:
The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives

The Yale student did not like what he heard. Sociologists derided religion and economists damned corporations. One professor pre-emptively rejected the suggestion that "workers on public relief be denied the franchise." "I propose, simply, to expose," wrote the young author in a booklong denunciation, one of "the most extraordinary incongruities of our time. Under the "protective label 'academic freedom,'" the institution that derives its "moral and financial support from Christian individualists then addresses itself to the task of persuading the sons of these supporters to be atheistic socialists."

That's the first paragraph. I won't put it all here.

Perhaps the student should throw a pie at his professor ... you know ... to display an acceptable nonviolent form of protest at the professor's words.

pieing is always an option.

0 Replies

Re: Invasion ........................

Magginkat wrote:

parados wrote:
Chic is a conservative.. ergo.. Chic is afflicted with dementia.

Quote:

Based on your attempts to engage others in debate here chic, I can see precisely why the professor stated such. Your arguments are not well thought out. You use personal experience as if it was applicable to the entire world. You bluster and resort to ad hominem attacks when questioned or refuted.

Ah, I see that this forum has been invaded by chiczaira aka Parthian aka massagatto, aka arthur aka dozens of other names, most which have been kicked out of other forums.

That's his SOS (standard operating procedure).... make an assorment of off the wall statements, sometimes short, sometimes (mostly) long running rants, declare them to be the ultimate, well researched, well thought out facts and anyone who responds to him is, of course, as dumb as a door knob!

This guy is in a deeper fantasy world than king george!

Parados gets it: "Chic is a conservative.. ergo.. Chic is afflicted with dementia." !

Yes indeed, I wonder how long he'll last this time.

Parados and Drewdad,

If you engage "chic" "massagato" [on Abuzz] and "Italgato" and other names, you are wasting your time. He listens to no one but himself.

0 Replies

Lola writes:

Quote:

Yes indeed, I wonder how long he'll last this time.

Parados and Drewdad,

If you engage "chic" "massagato" [on Abuzz] and "Italgato" and other names, you are wasting your time. He listens to no one but himself.

And the answer is......

He'll last until even HE is embarrassed to listen to himself.

It doesn't take much effort to bury someone in a pit when they bring their own shovel and they do all the digging.

0 Replies

I must admit I am amused by Parados's post. Not only did he take some else's post as mine, he descends to personal invective and does not attempt to rebut my points. I must therefore hold that my points stand unrebutted.

Cheers- Parados

0 Replies

chic writes:

Quote:

I must admit I am amused by Parados's post. Not only did he take some else's post as mine, he descends to personal invective and does not attempt to rebut my points. I must therefore hold that my points stand unrebutted.

Cheers- Parados

In my previous post addressed to you chic, I count 7 statements of yours followed by comments of mine that should be considered at least an attempt at "rebuttal". I will leave it to the others here to decide if my 7 statements were or were not an "attempt to rebut" your points. I find it interesting that you refused to address any of the 7.

I don't see any statement of mine in that post that can be called "personal invective." I pointed out errors on your part perhaps but I don't consider that "invective" since invective is defined as "abusive." I have made a joke or two at your expense in a couple of other posts but again I didn't think them to be particularly abusive and they would not apply since you used the singular word "post". Being the butt of those jokes I can understand you finding them in bad taste perhaps but filled with "personal invective" seems a bit overly dramatic.

As for your conclusion that you feel you were unrebutted, I am curious as to what number of your points would need to be addressed to make you reach a different conclusion. Was 7 not enough or was it too many?

0 Replies

Mr. Parados- Sir- I am very much afraid that you really do not understand the depth of your problem.

On April 10th 2005 at 1:39PM you wrote:

"CHICZAIRA wrote:

I write damn good papers. So upon receiving less than a passing grade and "naive and incomplete" written on the cover page, I went to the cover page for an explantion"

AS I CLEARLY STATED, I DID NOT( as you charged) WRITE THAT STATEMENT.

But, I was even more amazed when you posted again and did not own up to your egregious error which, as far as I was concerned, undermined the logic of the rest of your post.

I would respectfully suggest that you admit your error in misquoting me- I WOULD NEVER WRITE SUCH A LINE AS-"I write "damn good papers- etc."

If you cannot for whatever reason, do so, I must reluctantly come to the conclusion that whatever else you write is tainted by your refusal to admit an egregious mistake which was clearly meant to embarrass me. Alas, sir, it did not embarrass me, but rather defined you as a rather poor reseracher.

Cheers- Parados

0 Replies

And it descends to name calling. Whooda thunk?

I will let your statements stand unrebutted. Let them remain simply butted.

0 Replies

Quote:

Chic,

Quote:

I am very much afraid, Parados, that you start off by putting both of your feet firmly in your mouth. I did not write--"i write damn good papers". You began with an egregious mistake and went downhill rapidly.

You mean I can't start with a statement that isn't true and then present a lot of unrelated facts and use them to reach my conclusion? Thanks for clarifying that logic doesn't allow that. Perhaps you should now apply that standard to yourself. :wink: In case you still need help - this is called a "gotcha."

My dear Chic,

Did you miss the post where I stated the above? Or were you unable to understand my statement? In case you missed the sarcasm in my statement let me spell it out for you.

I used a false statement on purpose then used a bunch of facts unrelated to that false statement to prove the false statement true. It was a parody of your logic that I fully expected you to miss the first time and you did. You called me on it, as I expected, so that I could point out that the logic is wrong when you do it as well. I didn't realize that it would remain obtuse even when pointed out to you.

Let me try to be as clear as possible for you.

"a statement that isn't true" would mean you did NOT write "i write damn good papers."

"I used a false statement on purpose" would mean you did NOT write ""i write damn good papers."

If you need me to be clearer, let me know.

By the way, could you possibly point to my "personal invective"? I realize I can get "snotty" sometimes. It would help me to improve myself if you could tell me what it was.

0 Replies

Oh, Now, I understand.

Chiczaira wrote: I write damn good papers was meant to be sarcasm.

I accept your explanation but I fervently hope that in future exchanges you will also allow me to engage in "sarcasm". that sounds like a most usable ploy when one is cornered.

I must admit that I am suffering from the delusion that when one writes "Chiczaira wrote--I write damn good papers" it means that Chiczaira wrote "I write damn good papers". Unfortunately, I have not studied "deconstructionism" to any extent and am unable to make sense of arcane and esoteric philology.

0 Replies

Quote:

Mr. Parados- Sir- I am very much afraid that you really do not understand the depth of your problem.

Mr chiczaira - Sir - I am not the one that keeps digging with his shovel. Laughing

0 Replies

Mr chiczaira - sir - writes:

Quote:

Oh, Now, I understand.

Now that you understand the logical construct in my use of a false statement perhaps you could address the other facts in that post along with my other rebuttals in the later post.

And I would still like you to point out my "personal invective". I would love to explain or apologize for that one as well when you point it out. We can't have any false statements or personal attacks in this civilized discussion noble sir.

0 Replies

Did you read the rest of my post? Apparently, you did not. I said much more than-"Now I understand"

You really must read the entire post- sir.

Now, Personal Invective- Invective is abuse- Abuse is maltreatment. Despite your convoluted explanation, which does not make sense, I maintain that I was mistreated when you misquoted me.

Your explanation of "sarcasm" is, as far as I am concerned, inadmissible.

Why don't you go back through this post to find the identity of the person who wrote- "I write damn good papers"

You will find it was not "Chiczaira" and your attempt to disguise your mistake as sarcasm is most unbecoming.

Why don't you just admit you made a mistake?We all make them except those who feel they are perfect. I am sure that I have made mistakes and will continue to do so. The difference, in my mind, between someone that can admit mistakes and a person who will never admit errors, is the difference between someone who is learning and someone who thinks he or she knows everything.

Cheers- sir.

0 Replies

Mr Chiczaira,

I let the rest of your post slide because you made a gross mistatement about what I said and as you continue to argue anything after such a statement can be ignored I felt I should honor your argument.

You stated:

Quote:

"Chiczaira wrote: I write damn good papers" was meant to be sarcasm.

(Quotes provided by me for better understanding of what you probably meant.)

I never said any such thing. I said it was "parody." I would continue to let it slide but you repeat the factual untruth.

Quote:

You will find it was not "Chiczaira" and your attempt to disguise your mistake as sarcasm is most unbecoming.

Quote:

Your explanation of "sarcasm" is, as far as I am concerned, inadmissible.

This may have been a third time you misrepresented what I said but it is unclear and you may be referring to when actually I did use sarcasm. The placement of the sentence would appear to be that you are thinking of my parody but I can't be sure based on your use of language.

Quote:

Now, Personal Invective- Invective is abuse- Abuse is maltreatment. Despite your convoluted explanation, which does not make sense, I maintain that I was mistreated when you misquoted me.

I must congratulate you on this wonderful piece of irony. For those that might not understand it. I will explain. Invective means "abusive language." Maltreatment means "cruel or inhumane treatment." Chic makes a "tortured" and convoluted trip to make abusive language become cruel and inhumane then he accuses me of a convoluted explanation. The irony comes from his use of an action he claims makes no sense.

I continue to be awed by your arguments and use of language Sir Chiczaira and hope you continue to entertain us with your wonderful wit.

0 Replies

OMG, I feel so humbled before you Chiczaira - sir.

I completely missed the irony within the irony on first reading. It was brilliant the way you abased me for misquoting you but then you promoted yourself while misquoting me.

I was so blinded by the irony of the one paragraph I almost missed the use of it in the entire post.

Quote:

I maintain that I was mistreated when you misquoted me. ..... You will find it was not "Chiczaira" and your attempt to disguise your mistake as sarcasm is most unbecoming.

See the set up, then the subtle irony that follows later.

Now, note the use of "disguise" and "unbecoming" in the same sentence. Brilliant in its assessment that a disguise can be ugly and yet subtle in its use of "your attempt". Another brilliant piece of irony in calling me ugly in the same post Chic decries the use of invectives.

I am afraid I may have missed more. I understand full well that I can never be as perfect as you are Chiczaira - sir. I only hope you deign to continue to teach me and others here as we can only hope to learn from such a master as yourself.

0 Replies

thomas posted

Quote:

Unsurprisingly, Paul Krugman exaggerates, but he exaggerates an observation that is valid and pertinent. The Republican party today is lead by a president who is on record as stating that 'the jury is still out' on evolution. Its congressmen are led by a speaker, Bill Frist, who is on record as suggesting that AIDS is spread by tears. Frist's predecessor in that office, Tom Delay, is on record as stating that the Columbine highschool massacre happened because American schools teach evolution. On other occasions, Mr. Delay went on record as stating that his mission is to bring "a biblical worldview" to America, and that God sent him a brain-damaged coma patient to help accomplish that mission.

Isn't it conceivable to you that leadership like this alienates people who care about their party making sense? People who think truth is best searched for in an open-ended process of experimenting and theorizing, not proclaimed in holy scriptures? The very kind of people who would choose a carreer in academia?

Of course, this and your personal experience with your professor isn't mutually exclusive. It is a good guess that in the humanities, where hard checks on theories are absent, it is hard to keep socialist theology from perpetuating itself.

I apologize for being so long to respond to your reasonable and civil post, Thomas. Two jobs and school doesn't leave much time to sleep these days.

My impression of Mr. Krugman is that he is astute and informed when he talks of the mechanics of government. My impression is less favorable when he talks of social issues not only on this issue but on others. I do read his column often, though I missed the one you posted. For my own reasons I think he missed the mark on why there are so few conservative faculty as a process of natural selection. If that were true there would not have been such a good balance of liberal and conservative professors just a few decades ago.

I think his stretching his theory to conclude that it is also the religious beliefs of the Republicans who chase away conservative faculty is absurd and reflects what I perceive to be Mr. Krugman's strong anti-religious bias. I will add that I am not a member of the religious right and I am not Christian.

I am not a Republican, and I have not heard the quotes from the Republican leadership that you cited. If quoted accurately, and if they did not revise and extend those remarks, that would raise some eyebrows. As I have not heard any of them being that extreme, I think they may have revised and extended their remarks, however.

0 Replies

blatham posted

Quote:

Where a professor marks your paper either up or down based on agreement with his political ideas, then he ought immediately to be taken to task, personally by you and then if that doesn't ammeliorate the problem, with his/her department head, or above. That is anywhere and anytime. Of course, it ought to apply (intellectually) to a discussion, say, on abortion at a Christian university. You should write this event up, carefully and accurately with full details and file a report.

Such student activism would certainly make the student feel better should she prevail and receive her pound of flesh. She would also have a reputation on that campus that would not further her education.

0 Replies

Brandy wrote:

thomas posted

Quote:
Unsurprisingly, Paul Krugman exaggerates, but he exaggerates an observation that is valid and pertinent. The Republican party today is lead by a president who is on record as stating that 'the jury is still out' on evolution. Its congressmen are led by a speaker, Bill Frist, who is on record as suggesting that AIDS is spread by tears. Frist's predecessor in that office, Tom Delay, is on record as stating that the Columbine highschool massacre happened because American schools teach evolution. On other occasions, Mr. Delay went on record as stating that his mission is to bring "a biblical worldview" to America, and that God sent him a brain-damaged coma patient to help accomplish that mission.

Isn't it conceivable to you that leadership like this alienates people who care about their party making sense?

George W. Bush is basically trying to break the news (about evolution) to the leftists gently.

The jury is not "still out" on evolution. Evolution has been overwhelmingly disproven over the last hundred years and is no longer being defended by anybody with any claim to brains or talent at all. Any normal scientific theory would have been dropped like a hot potatoe eighty years ago on the evidence. Evolution is not a scientific theory. It is a pseudoscientific ideological doctrine and a pseudo-religion for atheists and yuppies.

No scientific theory is defended the way evolution is, i.e. tooth and claw and to the last man after it has failed every test. Only religions are defended like that.

One of the test evolution failed was the one specifically designed to eliminate the problem of not having millions of years to work with in the laboratory, i.e. the decades-long tests with fruit flies which breed every couple of days:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

Evolution also fails every test of mathematics and probability theory. A number of symposia were held at UPA at which a number of the world's best mathematicians triied to explain the nature of reality to evolutionists, i.e. tried to explain to them that evolution was impossible, and the evos are still in states of denial:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

The dumb ones that is. The brighter ones have all given up on it.

0 Replies

Gungasnake, did those mathematicians who claimed evolution is impossible also claim that creation(ism) IS possible?

0 Replies

And so Gunga hijacks another thread....

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Gungasnake, did those mathematicians who claimed evolution is impossible also claim that creation(ism) IS possible?

That's immaterial. No theory is better than an absolutely brain-dead theory.

0 Replies

Florida to end "leftist totalitarianism" by "dictator profs"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know