Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

[Agathon]

Re: Re: Re: Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

As long a they ignore Latin America and East Asia.

That's what I was thinking.

[Sava]

Agathon, not all conservative ideals are based upon religion... look at supply-side economics...


... wait... nevermind... that might as well be a religious concept because it takes FAITH to believe that ideology could work.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sava
Agathon, not all conservative ideals are based upon religion... look at supply-side economics...

If you look at my first post I made an exception of economics. That claim applies for the most part to conservative social policy.

... wait... nevermind... that might as well be a religious concept because it takes FAITH to believe that ideology could work.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Asher is too dumb to see the obvious.

Responsibility requires free will, free will is at root a religious concept not a scientific one, ergo people who argue about responsibility all the time, the way the conservatives do are, wittingly or no, basing their belief on relgious doctrine.

There - even an ape could understand that - although I don't hold out much hope for you.

Your problem is you're a pretentious **** who argues the most inane things that have no purpose.

What is the point of arguing if "free will" is of "religious" or "scientific" origin? As far as I'm concerned it's a basic human desire that predates religion.

And not all conservatives argue about "responsibility" all the time. In fact, I hear talk of "responsibility" on both sides of the fence. We need to put safety devices on guns, we need to ban gay marriage...

Perhaps I'm too "dumb" to see this all, or perhaps you're just hopelessly warped by years of bull**** study that you fail to see the most obvious.

Your position is as intellectually irresponsible as bible-thumping Christians, because being intellectual is about being able to see both sides of the argument. Your argument that liberalism is absolutely "correct" and that you can't seem to distinguish fact from opinion bodes well with my argument about the uselessness of Philosophers such as yourself in Universities. You haven't a clue how the world works.

At least, as a scientist, I understand the meaning of "perma-ignore" and also know how to use it.

[JohnT]

So to some up, the reason that conservative views fare badly at university is mainly because they are not intellectually respectable.

I would say that the reason why conservative views fare badly is because they are not copacetic with a group of people who think they know more than everybody else - after all, the idea that other people* know how to run their lives better than the intellectual elite is particularly galling to that very elite: it calls into doubt their worthiness, their importance, their cherished beliefs.

*especially those nasty, ignorant masses.

[yavoon]

University is a pretty cool place to be. hot women, job security, intellectual stimulation. I might be liberal if I lived in a nice enuff place.

get thrown to the wolves and the liberal genes just kinda sieve out.

[Ben Kenobi]

Both your side and BK's side in this argument is intellectually irresponsible as far as I'm concerned.

Why? Society is inseperable from teachings of religious dogma, at least in medieval and Renaissance Europe. Nowadays, the influence is less apparent, but still important.

How could someone understand the major conflicts of our time, without understanding religion, and what religion teaches?

In order to understand an author one must immerse onself in the period in which she writes.

I don't like Margaret Atwood, but in order to understand her, I must be knowledgeable about the late seventies, and her life in the seventies.

What appears to be in question is using religious dogma as supporting evidence for a position.

Why is religious dogma unacceptable in a class on morality? Surely religion provides adequate justification for a moral position, at least as adequate as the more trendy moral theories of utilitarianism, or Kantianism.

To reject one, and accept the other, implies a bias, against religion, that cannot and should not be accepted.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I rely on the old addage that those who can't do, teach. (Particulary philosophy )

[JohnT]

Those who can't teach, teach teachers.

[Az]

at least as adequate as the more trendy moral theories of utilitarianism, or Kantianism.

these are ethics, not morals.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Why? Society is inseperable from teachings of religious dogma, at least in medieval and Renaissance Europe. Nowadays, the influence is less apparent, but still important.

How could someone understand the major conflicts of our time, without understanding religion, and what religion teaches?

In order to understand an author one must immerse onself in the period in which she writes.

I don't like Margaret Atwood, but in order to understand her, I must be knowledgeable about the late seventies, and her life in the seventies.



Why is religious dogma unacceptable in a class on morality? Surely religion provides adequate justification for a moral position, at least as adequate as the more trendy moral theories of utilitarianism, or Kantianism.

To reject one, and accept the other, implies a bias, against religion, that cannot and should not be accepted.

Again, you're missing the point. Knowledge of religion certainly has its place, especially when considering social/historical context. And you're right about it being a justification for a moral position, certainly equal to the "more trendy" theories you list. I think the jist of the statement is that you'd no longer be taken seriously if you were to argue something along the lines of "Of course there was a great flood. The Bible says so!" Or "Homosexuality is indefensible - it's in the Bible!".

[Ben Kenobi]

I would agree in both cases, that it is insufficient to cite the bible as evidence. You can defend anything with utilitarianism.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yep. I've spent many happy hours doing the former at uni.

As for Asher's comments: the fact that engineering professors attempt to pontificate on someone else's area of expertise is amusing. I certainly wouldn't pontificate on bridge building.

As I said, if you think anything other than that liberalism is the consensus because it is winning the war of ideas, you are promoting what is essentially a conspiracy theory.

I think liberalism is winning because intellectual != intelligent. It's always fashionable to be "liberal" among academics.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Asher is too dumb to see the obvious.

Responsibility requires free will, free will is at root a religious concept not a scientific one, ergo people who argue about responsibility all the time, the way the conservatives do are, wittingly or no, basing their belief on relgious doctrine.

There - even an ape could understand that - although I don't hold out much hope for you.

Agathon - I believe it has been said before, but I think the students in your classes on formal logic should be a very interesting case study.

Since law requires responsibility, does that make any proponents of law inherently religious? I "believe" in free will, in the sense that my actions are a product of my mind and physical laws - would you call me religious? Free will is a philisophical concept, not a religious or scientific one.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would argue that the perception of free will is a philosophical construct.

in the sense that my actions are a product of my mind and physical laws

Implies perception, and not actual free will. Physical laws ought to have no influence over actual free will.

I'm with Agathon on this one.