Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Ramo


They are? I've never heard of my school persecuting the Young Conservatives of Texas.

Take a look at the list of speakers your school has had in the past year and note the ratio of liberal to conservative speakers.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Take a look at the list of speakers your school has had in the past year and note the ratio of liberal to conservative speakers.

There are many more serious liberal speakers than conservative ones. That's not violence. Mind you, most sociology experts don't agree with the Patriot Act. You can't do anything about it. Most historians know how oppressive the US has been in its history. And do you know of many political science experts who approve of the Repukes' lies?

They are not even discriminated against; they DON'T EXIST.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


There are many more serious liberal speakers than conservative ones. That's not violence. Mind you, most sociology experts don't agree with the Patriot Act. You can't do anything about it. Most historians know how oppressive the US has been in its history. And do you know of many political science experts who approve of the Repukes' lies?

That must be because academics inherently know what is best for us and are the only ones who have opinions worth considering.

[Berzerker]

We respond to input too. Like I said, the only difference is the complexity of the algorithm.

But we don't always act on the input. To be or not to be is not an option a computer can consider. Do you believe there is a suicide gene that kicks in only at puberty or later?

As as I said, it's not very smart.

And this lower intelligence means what? Equal free will or less?
As we go down the intelligence scale do we find critters driven more by instincts and less by free will? Your argument assumes a deterministic world and that requires us to believe there are murder genes and genes for every other "chosen" behavior. And wouldn't that make religion a determined behavior? Is there a religion gene too? Self-defense seems to be one of our more deterministic behaviors - self-interest/survival - yet there are people who not only won't defend themselves but will take their own lives. Are there "recessive" genes for that too?

If molesting little children is driven by a gene - determined (at birth) - how can we express moral outrage at pedophiles since their behavior was determined making our outrage illogical and their behavior inevitable? And what about the would-be pedophile who refrains from that behavior out of a sense of right and wrong? Is there a gene for right and wrong too? If so, doesn't that mean there is also a morality gene? Is there a (civil) rights gene? How about a communist or democracy gene?

I wasn't arguing that computers are self-aware, just that they have as much free will as we do.

Even though their behavior and "instincts" are %100 driven by programming? If ours were many (if any) suicides would not occur.

Btw you guys, where did you get the idea religious folk "invented" the notion of free will? Seems to be one of those ideas that appeared with the first person(s). Claiming it's religious because allegedly religious people wrote about it is like claiming the wheel is religious if religious folk wrote about it too...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Caligastia


That must be because academics inherently know what is best for us and are the only ones who have opinions worth considering.

NO. The only 'intelligent' position that could be remotely linked with conservatism is libertarianism- and yet, most libertarians hate the typical Tory/Republican. There are some libertarian thinkers everywhere.

Mind you, most Republican senators, I'm sure, can't even state what are Marx's arguments against capitalism. Those are the bulk of the idiot conservatives, i.e. who could never teach at a College anyway, because they are just illiterate.

[Berzerker]

There are many more serious liberal speakers than conservative ones.

You can't be serious.

[Fake Boris]

Berzerker, determinism goes much further than genetically inherited behaviors.

And yes, it is a religious concept- a judeo-christian one, more precisely. The vast majority of polytheistic religions had people believe their lives were all traced.

[Ben Kenobi]

can't even state what are Marx's arguments against capitalism.

So conservatives ought to be gaged by their knowledge of those whom they disagree?

In that case, you flunk badly Whaleboy.

I'm not surprised you completely ignored my post.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker


You can't be serious.

Surely, most Uni professors are pro-life, pro death penalty, believe the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein removed, and believe that since all homosexuals will burn in Hell anyway, we might as well put them in jail right now to help them before it's too late.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So conservatives ought to be gaged by their knowledge of those whom they disagree?

In that case, you flunk badly Whaleboy.

I'm not surprised you completely ignored my post.

In a way, yes. I've read both libertarians and commies before making my mind (besides, it's not set in stone: I'm always open to new arguments).

What about Whaleboy? I don't get what you mean.

I did ignore your post, true, because I didn't think it desserved a reply. Gee, do you expect the police to investigate everytime some paper are teared off, and some folks pushed against the wall?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
That depends on the definition of science you use. Most would believe maths to be a science.

Then give a useful definition of science. The application of logic to empirical evidence seems to be a very useful definition.

It can't. No one ever was able to put a definite, rational argument to prove it. Even Kant admitted it. The only thing we can know is that we have to ASSUME we have free will if we are somehow to act.

Free will is making one's own decisions. I make my own decisions. Ergo, I have free will. Basic logic.

Your caps are not helping you. No philosophy teacher would ever say that 'making a decision' is sufficient to believe in free will. I won't argue that we are 'making decisions'- that is a truism anyway.

Let Agathon make a statement about "no philosophy teacher" - he's at least marginally better qualified than you.

Say there are two parallel universes, at the state of day 0 (big bang). They are exactly identical. Do they evolve in a different way?

That has nothing to do with free will - in fact, it's not even a philosophical question, it's a scientific one, decided by empirical evidence. It is the question "is the universe deterministic or probabilistic".

(BTW, I know there can't be two universes. This a mere abstract hypothesis).

I understood that in this case, you meant "contiguous region of space-time"

The whole point was to say that since free will appeared at a time where humanity had no idea at all of the brain functions, it first originated as a religious concept, which stipulated we had a metaphysical, immortal soul.

No one believes in that anymore. You can still try to defend free will from a scientific, physical perspective, but most scientists are not wasting time doing it, because determinism is becoming increasingly plausible.

1. Determinism has already been disproven by quantum theory. The universe is probabilistic.

2. It doesn't matter. In either case, I make my own decisions. In a deterministic universe, I make them based on a set of rules, in a probabilistic universe, I randomly choose among a set of decisions with probabilities based on a set of rules. Thus, in either case, I have free will.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo


Why does one need to be "self-aware" to make choices? If the algorithm in my brain can make a choice, why can't a computer or an ant? Given some initial conditions in either case, their biological algorithms will spit out a certain decision.

Because a rock doesn't make a choice to fall to the ground.

The only difference is that a human person's algorithm is more complicated than a computer's or an ant's.

False. Very, very false. There is a qualitative difference between your mind and that of an ant (or a computer), and that is that your mind is self-aware. I obviously know that I am self-aware.

[Whaleboy]

Not just that, but when students form conservative groups on campus they are more likely to face opposition from college administrators than if they were to form a liberal group.

Well if its just countering their message, then that's fine by me and symptomatic of academia. If their views are being actively oppressed, in other words, forbidding said groups from meeting etc, then that is unacceptable on the grounds of free speech.

While you say you don't believe one view is inherently worse than another, you act as though the general tendency of academia to support your side proves it's superiority.

I am sorry you have that false impression. If we are talking about your average working Joe, then cerebral, philosophical liberalism isn't going to cut much ice. I don't see one context as "better" than the other. Different views are supported by different contexts. Academia supports (generally) liberalism, and I have no problem with that, it's in its nature, just as the fire service favours male employees.

That's fine. I just want both sides to have an equal chance to be represented.

As long as positive or negative discrimination is eliminated, thats fine. However, be aware that this will lead to more liberalism than conservatism.

They are? I've never heard of my school persecuting the Young Conservatives of Texas.

. I must say, I have not heard of any such case in Britain, and frankly would not expect it to occur here.

1. Man is fundamentally corrupt. You cannot perfect man through society, you can only restrain him.

Pragmatism.

2. Government, as a necessary evil, requiring the authority to restrain men.

Pragmatism.

3. Traditional elements in society are to be defended, because to tear at one, tears at all the rest. Changes to society, must always have compelling reasons before they are to be implemented.

Pragmatism.

4. Protection of men from each other. The concept, that people can indeed harm themselves, and the rejection of a victimless crime. In one case, prostitution, is not a victimless crime, because of the effects that prostitution has on the indulger.

Bull****.

5. Rights are based on Natural Law, and not on edicts of society. Fundamental freedoms, such as speech, religion, and life are to be acknowledged rather than procured by the government.

Bull****.

Thus we have the philosophical basis for conservatism .

Take a look at the list of speakers your school has had in the past year and note the ratio of liberal to conservative speakers.

As I said before, this is besides the point. I see nothing wrong in that. Just because someone speaks does not give them a right to be listened to, and no-one is attacking their right to speak. If I were running a college, it would be my perogative who to bring in.

That must be because academics inherently know what is best for us and are the only ones who have opinions worth considering.

Your strawmen aren't helping

NO. The only 'intelligent' position that could be remotely linked with conservatism is libertarianism- and yet, most libertarians hate the typical Tory/Republican. There are some libertarian thinkers everywhere.

OB I love you baby!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
Then give a useful definition of science. The application of logic to empirical evidence seems to be a very useful definition.

The application of logic to logic is also a science.

Free will is making one's own decisions. I make my own decisions. Ergo, I have free will. Basic logic.

No. Free will is about a human being making decision in a way that nothing was influenced by the laws of nature. Put Kant-like, it's the ability to become a 'legislator' yourself.

Let Agathon make a statement about "no philosophy teacher" - he's at least marginally better qualified than you.

I think he agrees with me, at least on this one, and probably on some of my other points.

That has nothing to do with free will - in fact, it's not even a philosophical question, it's a scientific one, decided by empirical evidence. It is the question "is the universe deterministic or probabilistic".

So, atomic determinism is not determinism? In any case, it does have some serious philosophical implications.

1. Determinism has already been disproven by quantum theory. The universe is probabilistic.

I am scientifically illiterate, so I can't discuss this. Can you give an understandable link?

2. It doesn't matter. In either case, I make my own decisions. In a deterministic universe, I make them based on a set of rules,

The point of free will, is that rules concerning your actions are made up by yourself.

in a probabilistic universe, I randomly choose among a set of decisions with probabilities based on a set of rules. Thus, in either case, I have free will.

Plausible. Still, if none of these 'set of rules' come from the rational subject, it's not free will.

[Agathon]

Skywalker:

Since you asked, OB is right about the decision thing.

Let me say again that you appear to be a compatibilist, so most of the arguments against free will are not aimed at you since they are aimed at the incompatibilist understanding of free will.