The argument against conservatism - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-01-2010, 08:07 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The Marx comment I was laughing at was because it was ironic and funny to have someone say "I'm not communist" and then use a general example (to make your point) that sounded like someone who read Marx. I get what you mean but I don't think it applies because I was talking specifically about professors I had and worldwide cap and trade which is OBVIOUSLY influenced by Marxism. These ideas influence the centre left much like libertarians influence the centre right (including myself when it comes to monetary policy but not fiscal policy). Anyways this debate was fun.

It's nice you guys try hard but my point is that it doesn't have to be "communist" to be a problem and you don't have to be a communist to have some Marxist influence and not everything that Marx said was totally wrong (just mostly wrong). It's also possible to support policies that Marxists would like and still disagree with them on most areas. A conservative sociologist on the other hand would be EXTREMELY rare. I suppose there could be a Socially Conservative Religious Sociologist and he would look at social work the same way as religous "good works" but he wouldn't be fiscally conservative.
Would tend to agree. Underlying this is, basically, entryism. Entryism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with this line of argument is that anyone making it ends up being accused of "Reds under the Bed" paranoia, but just because McCarthy was a bit paranoid, doesn't mean that the KGB didn't have prominent Western intellectuals in their payroll during the Cold War. In fact, they provably did.

While I can't speak for Canadian universities, it is not remotely difficult for me to conceive of the possibility that Marxists occupy, or at least occupied, prominent positions in Canadian universities - in my days in an ostensibly Catholic college in ostensibly neutral Ireland, open, devout Roman Catholicism was far less evident than than open, devout Marxism (for example, a friend is fond of relating the anecdote about his professor of English whose opening gambit to his first year English class was a 'confession' of his political sympathies, together with a recommendation that those not interested in a Marxist reading of English literature should consider alternative classes.)
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 09:00 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:26 PM
Quote:
I was talking specifically about professors I had and worldwide cap and trade which is OBVIOUSLY influenced by Marxism.
This market solution doesn't obviously seem Marxist.

Can you justify any of your assertions?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 10:40 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Conservatives have facts and figures too. The argument is on who believes which facts and figures are correct and that isn't going to be settled this century.
This is true, of course, you're right about that. I just meant that lately it seems like the Republicans have a bit of a stronghold on emotion instead of facts-even if they've got facts to support their argument, they rarely seem to use them. But of course, the other side has instances of that, too. Basically, facts and figures generally aren't interesting regardless of which side you're on nowadays. I don't know if it's because people find them boring (I must admit, when it comes to financial discussion/debate, for example, when people start getting into percentages and reading off massive numbers and talking about the stock market and all that sort of thing, my head starts to spin and I tend to lose interest as a result. But I've never been a big fan of math, so that explains that) or if it's because it's hard to relate them to everyday life or what, but unfortunately that type of argument being taken seriously is hard to come by nowadays.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 10:59 PM   #34
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Local Time: 08:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The Marx comment I was laughing at was because it was ironic and funny to have someone say "I'm not communist" and then use a general example (to make your point) that sounded like someone who read Marx. I get what you mean but I don't think it applies because I was talking specifically about professors I had and worldwide cap and trade which is OBVIOUSLY influenced by Marxism. These ideas influence the centre left much like libertarians influence the centre right (including myself when it comes to monetary policy but not fiscal policy). Anyways this debate was fun.



It's nice you guys try hard but my point is that it doesn't have to be "communist" to be a problem and you don't have to be a communist to have some Marxist influence and not everything that Marx said was totally wrong (just mostly wrong). It's also possible to support policies that Marxists would like and still disagree with them on most areas. A conservative sociologist on the other hand would be EXTREMELY rare. I suppose there could be a Socially Conservative Religious Sociologist and he would look at social work the same way as religous "good works" but he wouldn't be fiscally conservative.

And just to get ahead of you guys: I don't believe Obama is a Muslim. Any conservatives that think he is need their heads examined.
Heh - heh. PurpleOscar, you're alright. Thing is, you seem like a pretty reasonable with some ideas I agree with. As was said, it's entirely possible for someone to have both conservative and liberal leanings. As I had mentioned, I am conservative when it comes to the issue of the “political class” or the “government class” of citizens. But there is a problem. The sensible brand of fiscal conservatism you seem to be advocating, one that truly is about reducing spending, and being, well, conservative!… Not doing radical things like starting wars in the middle east, IS NOT what today’s republican party is! It has been hi-jacked by radical conservatives who’s primary objectives are about the consolidation of wealth & power and pushing their ideology by any means necessary, including distorting the truth by fear mongering, and bypassing sensible and reasoning public discourse such as in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. This is what happened under 8 years of Bush. But it’s not just him - looked what happened to McCain in ‘08 vs. the way he was in 2000. He realized that in order to fit into his party and gain the nomination he had to swing waaaaay to the right and become a radcon vs. the reasonable conservative he was back in ‘00 that I actually would have supported. So unfortunately, your arguments in your posts about how liberal governments eat up the GDP with their spending vs. what conservatives do doesn’t hold a lot of water because I think its inaccurate to say that conservatives, at least today’s radcons, in practice support smaller government and less spending. They are only for less government and spending when it comes to spending on things liberals think are important. But they have no problem running up trillions of dollars of dept to support their agenda (war in Iraq, reckless tax cuts, etc). Bush was like this but other recent conservatives such as Reagan also were. The “less government” argument is just a way to appeal to peoples financial interests - especially those who are in the middle or not waaay right. They say vote for us, “we’ll let you keep more of your money, you know how to spend it better than the government” etc…All those things people love to hear. But while they may be cutting spending on A, B, and C by x amount and this is what they keep focusing on they meanwhile plan to increase spending on X, Y, Z by 2x amount because those things fit the conservative agenda ( bigger military, wars,).
__________________
pcfitz80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 11:59 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Why? Because it would be hard to find a conservative that believed in science or higher education?
Zing!

Because sociology is heavily influenced by Marx. Certainly it can change and evolve but it's definitely influenced by the left (especially through the 20th century). Yes any person can study patterns in society Conservatives usually go to other areas like economics and political science and sometimes even in particular universities and think tanks. I don't know why it needs to be explained. Humans tend to go with "like" because it's easier to work together without conflicting agendas. Social sciences aren't like hard sciences because of human bias. Even the hard sciences can get stuck in particular paradigms that have to shift in heated debates.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 12:05 AM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfitz80 View Post
Heh - heh. PurpleOscar, you're alright. Thing is, you seem like a pretty reasonable with some ideas I agree with. As was said, it's entirely possible for someone to have both conservative and liberal leanings. As I had mentioned, I am conservative when it comes to the issue of the “political class” or the “government class” of citizens. But there is a problem. The sensible brand of fiscal conservatism you seem to be advocating, one that truly is about reducing spending, and being, well, conservative!… Not doing radical things like starting wars in the middle east, IS NOT what today’s republican party is! It has been hi-jacked by radical conservatives who’s primary objectives are about the consolidation of wealth & power and pushing their ideology by any means necessary, including distorting the truth by fear mongering, and bypassing sensible and reasoning public discourse such as in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. This is what happened under 8 years of Bush. But it’s not just him - looked what happened to McCain in ‘08 vs. the way he was in 2000. He realized that in order to fit into his party and gain the nomination he had to swing waaaaay to the right and become a radcon vs. the reasonable conservative he was back in ‘00 that I actually would have supported. So unfortunately, your arguments in your posts about how liberal governments eat up the GDP with their spending vs. what conservatives do doesn’t hold a lot of water because I think its inaccurate to say that conservatives, at least today’s radcons, in practice support smaller government and less spending. They are only for less government and spending when it comes to spending on things liberals think are important. But they have no problem running up trillions of dollars of dept to support their agenda (war in Iraq, reckless tax cuts, etc). Bush was like this but other recent conservatives such as Reagan also were. The “less government” argument is just a way to appeal to peoples financial interests - especially those who are in the middle or not waaay right. They say vote for us, “we’ll let you keep more of your money, you know how to spend it better than the government” etc…All those things people love to hear. But while they may be cutting spending on A, B, and C by x amount and this is what they keep focusing on they meanwhile plan to increase spending on X, Y, Z by 2x amount because those things fit the conservative agenda ( bigger military, wars,).
Well I think the U.S. had to do something after 9/11 and yes the pre-emptive attack on Iraq was an experiment and we've yet to see the full ramifications. Certainly on conservative boards they are very divided into "Sadaam was blocking weapons inspectors" to "Islamic people believe in Sharia law not democracy" to even more crude "Those Islamofacists aren't worth it." Others look to Reagan's responses as more balanced responses. I'm certainly conflicted because I do want to see Iraq and Afghanistan become more stable and not revert to what we see in Yemen. I definitely predict a more isolationist attitude in the U.S. for sometime, especially since long wars with heavily curtailed rules of engagement limit the efficiency of our troops to rout the enemy like in WWII. I don't think mass carpet bombing will go well with the media. Then when you add the cost no country can keep it going indefinitely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
This market solution doesn't obviously seem Marxist.

Can you justify any of your assertions?
Energy taxes are not market solutions. The market solution would be to take technology that the private sector or government developed to a level that can compete with fossil fuels or close to it so that venture capitalists would want to get in on it. Some people rightly prefer to call it cap and tax because any increases on fossil fuel companies will simply lead to increases in energy prices to the general public to maintain profits for shareholders. Energy companies are not just going to eat up the costs and pay employees less or cut dividends. Obama expected the coal companies to go under and he proposed a tax credit to help others find new jobs but those green jobs can only be created if we deindustrialize. We will be using some green technology heavily mixed with fossil fuels for sometime until a technological breakthrough appears. Also if you want to read in the old Global Warming threads what I wrote on Patrick Moore and Greenpeace + Maurice Strong + Copenhagen worldwide binding agreements that would necessarily create a world government you'll get what I meant by Marxist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
This is true, of course, you're right about that. I just meant that lately it seems like the Republicans have a bit of a stronghold on emotion instead of facts-even if they've got facts to support their argument, they rarely seem to use them. But of course, the other side has instances of that, too. Basically, facts and figures generally aren't interesting regardless of which side you're on nowadays. I don't know if it's because people find them boring (I must admit, when it comes to financial discussion/debate, for example, when people start getting into percentages and reading off massive numbers and talking about the stock market and all that sort of thing, my head starts to spin and I tend to lose interest as a result. But I've never been a big fan of math, so that explains that) or if it's because it's hard to relate them to everyday life or what, but unfortunately that type of argument being taken seriously is hard to come by nowadays.

Angela
Most people are taught how to think but few have enough time to be a specialist and to challenge paradigms. Some of these paradigms on how to understand how the world works are useful but are never ABSOLUTE REALITY so the debate will continue on indefinitely and it should because new things can be learned but it gets harder to reinvent man when so many bits of knowledge have accumulated over time. Radicals say "Hey the world is unjust and should be this way!" and the reactionaries say "We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater!" and so it goes on and on. The best thing for the general public to do is to read from general books you are averse to so you can get the gist of an opinion and as you learn more you can go in more detail but unfortunately the general public will have to spend most of their time taking care of their own jobs (which often require constant studying and upgrading) which will prevent specialization. Generalization is better than nothing but always keeping in mind that structures and paradigms on how humans evolve their ideas will keep shifting. Also political pendulums will move back and forth naturally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Would tend to agree. Underlying this is, basically, entryism. Entryism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with this line of argument is that anyone making it ends up being accused of "Reds under the Bed" paranoia, but just because McCarthy was a bit paranoid, doesn't mean that the KGB didn't have prominent Western intellectuals in their payroll during the Cold War. In fact, they provably did.

While I can't speak for Canadian universities, it is not remotely difficult for me to conceive of the possibility that Marxists occupy, or at least occupied, prominent positions in Canadian universities - in my days in an ostensibly Catholic college in ostensibly neutral Ireland, open, devout Roman Catholicism was far less evident than than open, devout Marxism (for example, a friend is fond of relating the anecdote about his professor of English whose opening gambit to his first year English class was a 'confession' of his political sympathies, together with a recommendation that those not interested in a Marxist reading of English literature should consider alternative classes.)
It's a particular generation that went through the 20th century (especially the 60s) taught by Marxist professors and they themselves were taught propaganda by the Soviets. My history teacher was cagy when the subject came up and he said "I never saw anything wrong when I was in the Soviet Union" and he would walk away if you pressed him on it because it was an unpopular point of view in a business faculty. I remember my Sociology teacher played some Grateful Dead music during the break and some students were naturally repulsed by hippy attitudes (probably because it reminds them of their parents) and would not stay to listen.

My Dad was a part of this generation and in the 70s and 80s when he was in university he took an easy Latin American history course (he was born in Brazil) and his marks went from 9 to 5 when he mentioned to the Columbian Marxist teacher that he didn't like Castro trading humans for tractors. Even when he immigrated to Canada he had to take Grade 12 high school to enter university and he had a German lady talk about the great infrastructure made in the Soviet Union and "how could a bad society create such amazing things?" This of course would dovetail in my belief that leftists and rightists tend to not mix well together in universities and think tanks. You can even see basic tribalism in office workplaces, school and other places where group work is necessary for examples of ostracism. We even celebrate it with "reality" programming shows. "You're Fired!" "You've been voted off the Island!". Basic human nature hasn't really evolved much.

A good area to study would be the protests at Universities in the 60s where curriculums were challenged and changed. That had a huge impact that created a more self-loathing of the west point of view. Certainly colonialism was BAD but this self-loathing can turn into the political correctness that we see today.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 12:17 AM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
While I can't speak for Canadian universities, it is not remotely difficult for me to conceive of the possibility that Marxists occupy, or at least occupied, prominent positions in Canadian universities
For my degrees I attended two of the largest universities in Canada, including the largest one and including the top ranked one. Purpleoscar went to a small regional school that really is not known nationally - most people in Ontario probably wouldn't even know it existed. This is not a knock by any means because a number of the smaller universities across this country are actually remarkably excellent, but I also think that his experience is not necessarily one that you should take as the common one.

Frankly I never encountered an openly communist or Marxist professor. There were left leaning and right leaning ones but not of the sort that purpleoscar constantly refers to and has a giant chip on his shoulder about. Also worth noting is that as somebody who studied corporate law, I probably encountered just about every right wing economic conservative there is and you will note that I don't go around whining about it years afterwards. That is what university is about: critical thinking. You will be exposed to a variety of opinions, left, right and middle. The way purpleoscar describes his schooling makes it seem worse than the education that I received in the Eastern Communist bloc country in which I lived for the first 11 years of my life. Either he's paranoid and exaggerating, or like I said his school is not indicative of the Canadian mainstream.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 12:49 AM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
For my degrees I attended two of the largest universities in Canada, including the largest one and including the top ranked one. Purpleoscar went to a small regional school that really is not known nationally - most people in Ontario probably wouldn't even know it existed. This is not a knock by any means because a number of the smaller universities across this country are actually remarkably excellent, but I also think that his experience is not necessarily one that you should take as the common one.

Frankly I never encountered an openly communist or Marxist professor. There were left leaning and right leaning ones but not of the sort that purpleoscar constantly refers to and has a giant chip on his shoulder about. Also worth noting is that as somebody who studied corporate law, I probably encountered just about every right wing economic conservative there is and you will note that I don't go around whining about it years afterwards. That is what university is about: critical thinking. You will be exposed to a variety of opinions, left, right and middle. The way purpleoscar describes his schooling makes it seem worse than the education that I received in the Eastern Communist bloc country in which I lived for the first 11 years of my life. Either he's paranoid and exaggerating, or like I said his school is not indicative of the Canadian mainstream.
Yeah like the treatment Ann Coulter got at Ottawa University? I'm not the liar! I didn't actually complain to anyone at the University. I actually debated these idiots and saw them for who they are. I'm not afraid of debate if you hadn't noticed. BTW I'm also not the only one who thinks humanities courses in NORTH AMERICA are heavily influenced by the left. Only people who like their style of teaching don't notice the bias. It's also well known that media faculties are the same way. There's entire books on liberal bias in media and academia and it's certainly not only in Canada. Since humanities affects how people look at society and politics and even how they vote mentioning pro-business people in a pro-business faculty that you studied in is not the same thing. My economics and accounting courses didn't have left-wing politics, though I did have a stats course where the teacher talked about his experience in University where a communist teacher gave the entire class 100% because he believed in equality but I doubt that was a business class.

BTW I keep bringing up these teachers precisely because people like you keep challenging me on it and pretend that universities are so politically balanced so calling it "whining" is disingenuous.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 01:29 AM   #39
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yeah like the treatment Ann Coulter got at Ottawa University?
Tell me, what kind of treatment do actual respected conservative intellectuals receive? Perhaps Ann Coulter got rough treatment because she represents a very divisive and inflammatory media brand of conservatism, one that feeds off of creating division at every possible opportunity and does not shy away from outlandish statements and accusations? Do you think that might have something to do with it? Or do you actually think she got that reception merely because she's a conservative and those darned lefties just can't stand the idea of a conservative coming to speak at their college?

Quote:
There's entire books on liberal bias in media and academia and it's certainly not only in Canada.
Well if there's a book on it, it must be true. (written by conservatives, no doubt)
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 01:59 AM   #40
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

BTW I keep bringing up these teachers precisely because people like you keep challenging me on it and pretend that universities are so politically balanced so calling it "whining" is disingenuous.
Please. You bring it up constantly in all sorts of discussions and then get challenged. I've never encountered anyone else who had such a chip on their shoulder about their professors.

I never said anything about universities being politically balanced. I simply take issue with your claim that they are full of "openly Communist" professors. I've never had anyone declare themselves as such in my many years of post-secondary education and I think you're presenting a false picture by constantly implying that it is the norm.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 08:49 AM   #41
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Because sociology is heavily influenced by Marx. Certainly it can change and evolve but it's definitely influenced by the left (especially through the 20th century). Yes any person can study patterns in society Conservatives usually go to other areas like economics and political science and sometimes even in particular universities and think tanks. I don't know why it needs to be explained. Humans tend to go with "like" because it's easier to work together without conflicting agendas. Social sciences aren't like hard sciences because of human bias. Even the hard sciences can get stuck in particular paradigms that have to shift in heated debates.
Now there's a concise definition of Sociology.

Just to let you know, I know three full fledged Sociologists and two of them are conservatives. Both would find you troubling.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 11:40 PM   #42
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Local Time: 08:26 AM
[QUOTE=purpleoscar;6923979]Well I think the U.S. had to do something after 9/11 and yes the pre-emptive attack on Iraq was an experiment and we've yet to see the full ramifications. Certainly on conservative boards they are very divided into "Sadaam was blocking weapons inspectors" to "Islamic people believe in Sharia law not democracy" to even more crude "Those Islamofacists aren't worth it." Others look to Reagan's responses as more balanced responses. I'm certainly conflicted because I do want to see Iraq and Afghanistan become more stable and not revert to what we see in Yemen. I definitely predict a more isolationist attitude in the U.S. for sometime, especially since long wars with heavily curtailed rules of engagement limit the efficiency of our troops to rout the enemy like in WWII. I don't think mass carpet bombing will go well with the media. Then when you add the cost no country can keep it going indefinitely.
QUOTE]

I know we had to do something after 9/11. That is why I supported striking back in Afghanistan. No problem there. But going into Iraq was an egregious mistake. Saddam was a terrible dictator for sure but he did not have anything to do with 9/11 and was not capable of attacking us with WMDs because he had none. I can not stress how strongly opposed I was to the idea of attacking both back in ’02 -03 and now. We had an administration that was not interested in facts and details such as how to bring peace and stability after the removal of Saddam. Bush just thought “they will be so grateful to us for taking him down. Then they will naturally just form a democracy and all will be well.” But it was not so at all. Why? Because as much as Iraqis did not like Saddam they DID NOT want us there. And all the pent up energy from the warring groups that had been quelled under Saddam just went off like a time bomb after he was taken down. And don’t tell me something like “hindsight is 20/20” because I and many others could clearly see that something like this would happen before we went in. It wasn’t rocket science. The facts were there. But Bush / Cheney/Rumsfeld were not interested in facts if they didn’t support their ideology so they made up their own version of the truth and facts including forged documents allegedly showing that Saddam had tried to buy WMDs.
__________________
pcfitz80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2010, 02:22 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,270
Local Time: 06:26 AM
Bingo. That's how a lot of people seem to feel: Afghanistan=understandable. Iraq=?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: one of the main reasons, if not THE main reason, Bush's push for democracy in Iraq didn't work is because you cannot FORCE democracy on people. That kinda goes against the whole definition of the concept, which has been around for a very, very, VERY long time. As has the country of Iraq. I'm pretty sure if they want a democracy (and if they do, hooray, I'm cool with that), they will be smart enough and knowledgeable enough about the concept to create one. The idea of us going over to other countries and saying, "We're here to bring you democracy!" just generally tends to come off to me as awfully patronizing, like they're too ignorant or stupid to get the concept. Not to mention, we're having enough trouble keeping our own country's government in order, what makes us think we'll be able to construct anything valid in another country? And I find it funny that so many of the same people that have no problem trying to force government ideas onto another group of people are the same ones that are so reserved about government control here at home.

Also, there may well have been people in Iraq already secretly plotting ways to get rid of Saddam. We just beat them to the punch. But I don't think it's a wise idea to go around taking out the leaders of other nations. I feel that little experiment will come back to bite us (hell, the 9/11 attackers were headed for the White House. They were going to take out our leader, had they not been stopped). That, and it often seems that when we're involved in setting up the government for other nations, we tend to, um, not have the best track record of picking decent leaders. So why we keep insisting on this attempt at controlling other nations' governments, I'm not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Most people are taught how to think but few have enough time to be a specialist and to challenge paradigms. Some of these paradigms on how to understand how the world works are useful but are never ABSOLUTE REALITY so the debate will continue on indefinitely and it should because new things can be learned but it gets harder to reinvent man when so many bits of knowledge have accumulated over time. Radicals say "Hey the world is unjust and should be this way!" and the reactionaries say "We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater!" and so it goes on and on. The best thing for the general public to do is to read from general books you are averse to so you can get the gist of an opinion and as you learn more you can go in more detail but unfortunately the general public will have to spend most of their time taking care of their own jobs (which often require constant studying and upgrading) which will prevent specialization. Generalization is better than nothing but always keeping in mind that structures and paradigms on how humans evolve their ideas will keep shifting. Also political pendulums will move back and forth naturally.
All of this is quite true. My parents used to say the same thing all the time. Which I fully understand, and even those that do specialize in certain concepts aren't always going to fully understand everything, because, as you said, changes to the information are always constant.

But at the very least, yes, everyone should at some point in their lives hear some views that are completely opposite their own so as not to generalize so often, and reevaluate their own views more often as well, just make sure that they truly understand why it is they feel the way they do. And those in the media and the politicians need to quit throwing out red herrings that have squat to do with the actual topics at hand. They just need to properly explain their arguments in a way that isn't dumbed-down-talk to the public like they're intelligent, rational beings and they'll respond thusly-but which also sounds like they truly understand what people are going through, why they think the way they do, and if they do that, that'll show they're willing to work with everyone to try and find some solution, some common ground. And there's always a common ground somewhere. Even the most radical lefty and righty can find something they can agree on, I firmly believe that.

Also, I've only completed a bit of community college work, but when I did go, I went in Wyoming. There were some liberal leanings to the teachers there, but it clearly didn't seem to affect the students-perhaps the most conservative area I've ever lived in. And I also lived in Nebraska and South Dakota, states also not known for embracing left-wing ideology. And any teachers that were liberal were not radically so.

If any teachers out there at any school grade kids lower simply for having a difference of political opinion, that's a really dumb way to teach, that's not how you should be graded. But no matter the view of a teacher, it's still up to the students to decide if they want to follow that belief system or not. I don't think there's any sort of intentional attempt to try and force everyone into a left-wing view.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2010, 04:12 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Now there's a concise definition of Sociology.

Just to let you know, I know three full fledged Sociologists and two of them are conservatives. Both would find you troubling.
I would find them troubling. If they are truely conservative they would have to fire themselves. Unless they are really political scientists. Even my Sociology instructor admitted that government workers want to increase in funding and size. Of course he would love that but he's at least aware that there is opposition to that goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Please. You bring it up constantly in all sorts of discussions and then get challenged. I've never encountered anyone else who had such a chip on their shoulder about their professors.

I never said anything about universities being politically balanced. I simply take issue with your claim that they are full of "openly Communist" professors. I've never had anyone declare themselves as such in my many years of post-secondary education and I think you're presenting a false picture by constantly implying that it is the norm.
I'm talking about humanities courses. Of course if you go to Economics and Business you'll get more liberal Keynesian and Libertarian types. You can call me a liar if you want (meaning I'm making up these people that I actually met) but I know my experience so you're not exactly going to convince me. Topics of left-wing bias in academia are not new and my experiences dovetail with others. If you didn't get that bias that's fine and if you found conservative bias only then that shouldn't happen either. Points of view only make sense when they are compared.

I've even got examples with my niece in Catholic school. She already has opinions about Bush being worse than Obama and a general dislike of the U.S. How did that happen? She's just learning to read. They should be teaching what Presidents are responsible for (if they can understand at the age of 8) not which ones are the best.

YouTube - EXPOSED: Elementary Students Forced to Participate in Barack Obama Political Indoctrination Song

Why don't we actually teach them how to develop skills instead of singing about current left-wing presidents in classrooms. What a waste of time. I know Obama supporters would like this but if you put Bush's name instead of Obama it would piss them off. Though knowing Teacher's unions I could hazard a guess there would be more push to sing about Democrats than Republicans. I would also include religous types who can't tell the difference between physics and metaphysics and want to teach Creationism in science classrooms.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2010, 04:17 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
All of this is quite true. My parents used to say the same thing all the time. Which I fully understand, and even those that do specialize in certain concepts aren't always going to fully understand everything, because, as you said, changes to the information are always constant.

But at the very least, yes, everyone should at some point in their lives hear some views that are completely opposite their own so as not to generalize so often, and reevaluate their own views more often as well, just make sure that they truly understand why it is they feel the way they do. And those in the media and the politicians need to quit throwing out red herrings that have squat to do with the actual topics at hand. They just need to properly explain their arguments in a way that isn't dumbed-down-talk to the public like they're intelligent, rational beings and they'll respond thusly-but which also sounds like they truly understand what people are going through, why they think the way they do, and if they do that, that'll show they're willing to work with everyone to try and find some solution, some common ground. And there's always a common ground somewhere. Even the most radical lefty and righty can find something they can agree on, I firmly believe that.

Also, I've only completed a bit of community college work, but when I did go, I went in Wyoming. There were some liberal leanings to the teachers there, but it clearly didn't seem to affect the students-perhaps the most conservative area I've ever lived in. And I also lived in Nebraska and South Dakota, states also not known for embracing left-wing ideology. And any teachers that were liberal were not radically so.

If any teachers out there at any school grade kids lower simply for having a difference of political opinion, that's a really dumb way to teach, that's not how you should be graded. But no matter the view of a teacher, it's still up to the students to decide if they want to follow that belief system or not. I don't think there's any sort of intentional attempt to try and force everyone into a left-wing view. Angela
Yes in the end people will have to live their lives and many will question what they are taught simply because life can force you to. I'm more annoyed with the ones who don't question and actually pick up rocks and smash windows or burn cars at braindead protests that offer no solutions but anarchy. Some of these types use actual peaceful protestors as cover for their antics.

I also wish for more debate style programs so we don't have to have MSM vs. Fox news/Talk radio. I guess that's why many just stay "independent" and/or don't vote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Tell me, what kind of treatment do actual respected conservative intellectuals receive? Perhaps Ann Coulter got rough treatment because she represents a very divisive and inflammatory media brand of conservatism, one that feeds off of creating division at every possible opportunity and does not shy away from outlandish statements and accusations? Do you think that might have something to do with it?

Or do you actually think she got that reception merely because she's a conservative and those darned lefties just can't stand the idea of a conservative coming to speak at their college?
I agree with the second part. Not all the universities threatened violence. Van Jones, Holdren, and Dunn also say totally say extreme things but the last thing I want is someone to rough them up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Well if there's a book on it, it must be true. (written by conservatives, no doubt)
Because we can expect liberals to do that for us? Conservatives can see when liberals talk about their opinions as if they are facts (typical human problem with bias) and when that builds up so will the complaints. People with different points of view can see things that others don't. I'm pretty sure both sides should be able to understand that.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com