Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, Imran, I tend to side with you in this argument. Conservatives are naturally inclined to move cautiously due to the potential of unexpected consequences.

So we agree on definitions. And I suppose you'll agree there are several tones of conservatism, including the people who feel the status quo has to be better.

It is a natural consequence that these cautious / psychorigid people are not the most fit for the fundamentally trailblazing activity that is research.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have such a screwed view of NAFTA, it's too funny. Do you realize how much work it took to get that passed?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, Imran, I tend to side with you in this argument. Conservatives are naturally inclined to move cautiously due to the potential of unexpected consequences.

Liberals tend to be incautious, advocating radical change that can have (and have had, in the case of communism) many unforseen consequences, most of which are not good.

Yeah, worker unions, women's suffrage, universal education and democracy suck.

And what about now? Watch society collapse as our young start sodomizing themselves to death because they inhaled too much of that oh-so dangerous marijuana that turns us into gay liberals.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You have such a screwed view of NAFTA, it's too funny. Do you realize how much work it took to get that passed?

In Canada, it was the main issue of two elections. Does political will and public debates count as 'work'?

And look at the FTAA: thousands of negociators, diplomatic extravaganza, dozens of university researchers talking about it 24/24.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor


So we agree on definitions. And I suppose you'll agree there are several tones of conservatism, including the people who feel the status quo has to be better.

It is a natural consequence that these cautious / psychorigid people are not the most fit for the fundamentally trailblazing activity that is research.

Yeah, Spiffor, I do agree with you and with Imran. There are degrees of what you would call "close mindedness." Probably, some of this had to do with religion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah, worker unions, women's suffrage, universal education and democracy suck.

And what about now? Watch society collapse as our young start sodomizing themselves to death because they inhaled too much of that oh-so dangerous marijuana that turns us into gay liberals.

Well, Oncle Boris, you do have a point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In Canada, it was the main issue of two elections. Does political will and public debates count as 'work'?

Yes, it does. What else would you consider it? It barely passed in the US, and wouldn't have if it wasn't for the around the clock work of President Clinton.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
In short, Conservatives are *******s who believe genocides and starvations do not require immediate and radical intervention, but rather 'reasonable' action aimed at protecting a system that works for 10% of humans.

How much do you weigh?

Commies tend to be fat.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


I'm generally against AA except in the form of giving added weight to good students from disadvantaged backgrounds (and that's just reasonable since the backgrounds do have effects).

We agree on this. It's counter productive in the extreme to give Michael Powell (Colin's son) a college scholarship and deny one to a hillbilly who is the first in his family to attend college.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
I love this. No one is denying that the left predominates on campus, especially in the social sciences and humanities.

Most of the tories here seem to espouse some kind of conspiracy theory when the truth is that conservative social positions are at odds with reality and heavily depend on religious sources. The exception is economics, where they have done well in the last 20 years. If there were such a left wing conspiracy, then economics departments would be very left wing.

Tories should face the fact that when it comes to social policy, religion is not going to cut it in a secular society and most of what they hold is vestigially religious anyway,

As for everyday social conservatism, I think it is mainly due to ignorance. The primary and secondary education systems in English speaking countries are appallingly bad. Most students leave school without understanding how our society works or what the main political movements actually stand for, or any basic understanding of the basic facts of history. For example, most New Zealanders do not know who Napoleon was, or why World Wars I and II started.

Hence we have to deal with a large proportion of the population who think that taxation is just theft (not in the Libertarian sense either) because they have no idea of the reasons for why a tax system is necessary.

Most of us are simply trying to avoid tedious arguments for which neither side can bring any tangible evidence.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Yeah sure. It's been a no-no for all Repukes and Democrats since the end of the Cold War. But when it comes to the NAFTA (which ruined Mexico) all senators get viagracally excited, and start hiring all sorts of advisors and negociators to do it as fast as possible.

Trade between the US and other countries is necessarily national policy. The well-being of the rest of the world is not, except inasmuch as it affects the US. The US can make decisions about world policy (I'm not attaching morality here, I'm talking about capability), if it chooses to, but that isn't national policy.

[Berzerker]

In short, Conservatives are *******s who believe genocides and starvations do not require immediate and radical intervention, but rather 'reasonable' action aimed at protecting a system that works for 10% of humans.

If you feel the need to intervene, go right ahead. Just don't force others to risk their lives or pay for your agenda... Btw, why are the liberals the ones making such a fuss about the removal of Saddam if they're so strongly opposed to genocide and starvation?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In Canada, it was the main issue of two elections. Does political will and public debates count as 'work'?

Yes, it does. What else would you consider it? It barely passed in the US, and wouldn't have if it wasn't for the around the clock work of President Clinton.

Actually, never mind, we agreed on this from the beginning. I misunderstood your first point.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker


If you feel the need to intervene, go right ahead. Just don't force others to risk their lives or pay for your agenda... Btw, why are the liberals the ones making such a fuss about the removal of Saddam if they're so strongly opposed to genocide and starvation?

I don't feel like going through the whole debate again, especially with you, , but here are some points:

1. the hypocrisy of the admin, and the false evidence used
2. the actual destabilization of the ME- security my ass! the war in Iraq is screwing things even more
3. from another viewpoint, the world was appalled by the apperent lack of self-criticism by America in the whole affair
4. and remember, the embargo killed more people than Saddam ever did.

Despite all of this, I was, personally, a mild supporter of the war in Iraq. Even though I despised the hypocrisy of the admin (esp. on the embargo issue, which, in fact, HELPED Saddam, by making friendship with the regime much more valuable), I had hoped that, for once, the Yanks would be able to build something at least better than Saddam's regime.

Seeing, once again, how they are screwing things up (you guys just CAN'T handle a foreign country right), well, I'm quite disenchanted and joined the protesting side.

[Ned]

Oncle Boris, Now, just what is your recipe for Iraq.