I find it fascinating that a university in the US can be so religious and yet have a curriculum in, say, physics. I hope they do not have conflicts of interest when it comes to use good and gravity in the same sentence.
This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
691–700 of 707 posts
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#692I find it fascinating that a university in the US can be so religious and yet have a curriculum in, say, physics. I hope they do not have conflicts of interest when it comes to use good and gravity in the same sentence.
FYI Newton was a very religious person. Wikipedia even has a whole article dedicated to his religious views.
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
These things get carried forward culturally. The modern Jewish experience is very much rooted in the Holocaust, and the fear that it might happen again at any time. The Holocaust was not the first, or even the largest such pogrom -- note that there is a word coined precisely to describe genocide events targeting jews -- it was just the closest to the current generation of jews in western countries. It's hard to expla…
> It's hard to explain politics regarding present-day Israel without this context, for example. Not really. The Holocaust wasn't a factor in deciding to build a wall along the West Bank. The suicide bombers that would drive from Ramallah to Tel Aviv and blow themselves up in restaurants were. Europeans and liberals have constructed this narrative that you are espousing. They want to believe that the Holocaust is the…
I'm pretty sure you just illustrated my point.
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#694Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Deliberately not having trigger warnings is deliberately deceptive. facepalm
That's not an argument. Could you explain why you disagree? It seems that in the absence of a warning, there is no informed consent; asking for a warning allows for freedom of association. If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave.…
How does one argue with someone that has irrational and illogical views?
> If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want people to know in advance. How is that not deceptive?
The mere thought that this is what you expect says, "I'm not a rational person."
How does anyone respond to that? There's nothing to be said to you. You've made no indication (from the many comments I've read) that you're prepared to have your mind changed or that you're open to other points of view.
You have come to an irrational conclusion and that's it. You're finished. Everyone else (that doesn't agree) is a "jerk" and can take a hike.
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#695Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an argument. Could you explain why you disagree? It seems that in the absence of a warning, there is no informed consent; asking for a warning allows for freedom of association. If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave.…
How does one argue with someone that has irrational and illogical views? > If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want pe…
Perhaps you should doubt the rationality of your own views, now that you've realized you don't have any arguments for them. I can give arguments for almost all of my beliefs, except for perhaps very basic ones (things like "I exist", and even those, I generally can give reasons why, just not full arguments). If you realize you have no arguments, you should ask yourself why you believe something and see if you get any answers.
Which part of my comments suggested to you that I'm not willing to hear out other views?
I've tried to lay out my arguments at length. Are there any premises I assume that you disagree with, or are there steps I take that are logically unjustified?
And specifically, why is my claim irrational? It's mostly a moral claim, so to be irrational it must conflict with other moral claims I hold, right?
(Also, it's a bit weird that you seem to have a dichotomy between "rational" and "irrational" people; nobody is perfectly rational, and classifying specific arguments as rational/irrational is often more useful. Especially when it leads you to refuse to argue for a position on the dubious grounds that they aren't interested in hearing it.
And perhaps reflect on the fact that by writing off a differing position as irrational without bothering to rebut it, you're creating the bubble you accuse me of being in.
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an argument. Could you explain why you disagree? It seems that in the absence of a warning, there is no informed consent; asking for a warning allows for freedom of association. If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave.…
How does one argue with someone that has irrational and illogical views? > If the OP had said "being open to guilt etc is an integral part of our university; as such, anyone refusing to go to this talk will be expelled. However, we will tell people in advance, so they can choose not to go, and then leave." I would support him. To specifically say "I'm not telling people about what will happen" means you don't want pe…
I'd be interested in a robust defense of the claim that refusing to have a trigger warning, in the context of this post, is not deceptive.
The arguments I see for not having one are: too few people would care so it's not worth inconveniencing the many for the few; there's already informed consent and so it's useless; and the talk is not harmful to anyone. (I think I had another minor one in mind but can't recall right now.)
1 is possible, but is not the one made by OP. I've argued against the premise of 2 (which the OP did make); if you have a more deontological worldview, you might want to frame this as the student's "own fault" for not realizing, but I generally don't blame people for being dumb (in the sense of insisting on them bearing the consequences of being dumb), instead asking which course of action yields the best consequences. In this case, if we assume informed freedom of association is a value, then adding information is a benefit.
3 would be a good defense if done well, but again, isn't the OP. It would actually be the best example of "I'm not a jerk"-type answers. But it's not immediately obvious how we can view something that bothered someone as not harming them. At best, you'd probably need to invoke Christian beliefs and go back to "informed consent" as above. Presumably you concede that Christians shouldn't do this to outsiders, and so the issue is about what counts as informed consent.
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do they call it the Death Tax? ...because the estate tax has the effect of being a tax on dying. Why do they call the lobbying for prevention of medical treatment for women, Pro-life? Because we think elective abortions (almost all abortions are elective) are not medical treatment, but rather a barbaric practice in which one person is killed for the convenience of the other, and in most cases is harmful in the lo…
... because "estate tax" is a tax on wealth. ... because controlling women is what Republicans want to do. You have to go into very modern religious nonsense to come up with an idea that a fetus is a person, and you've decided that politicians should have more say over a woman's health than her doctor. ... because you hate the idea that a political party could seem "democratic." Sorry, but peddle that hilarious disho…
1. I said "effectively" a tax on death, because it's levied at the time of wealth transfer, which is almost always at death.
2. There is blaring, obvious religious justification for considering conception to be the beginning of life, and it has a high degree of consistency in logic and basic medical observation. Arguing that life begins at some other (arbitrary) point is a loser's game, my friend, and it comes right out of a post-modern nihilistic nonsense. Being anti-abortion has everything to do with protecting the rights of the child because that child is a person, and nothing whatsoever to do with controlling women, except to the extent it's required to protect the life of the child.
3. Because....what? If that's not manufactured outrage, then I don't know what is. Seriously. I think it's highly likely that most people refer to the Democratic party as the Democrat party because "democrat" is the noun that the adjective "democratic" comes from, and is the grammatically proper way to refer to someone who is a member of the Democratic party (as a "democrat").
All of this really kind of proves my point, I think: I nor any conservative that I know are upset that you don't describe things using our preferred terminology, but you seem to be upset (accusing me of dishonesty seems pretty upset to me) that I decline to use yours. Seems like a one-way street to me.
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#698Earlier quoted context omitted.
I replied to the portion of your comment I thought relevant. Stomp your feet all you want, but I don't owe you anything further, and acting entitled to interaction on your terms doesn't incline me to take you seriously.
Of course you owe me nothing, and of course I'm not entitled to interaction from you, on any terms. I've said twice, and now I say a third time, that you can stop interacting with me any time you like. But while you choose to interact with me, I am free to point out when you're violating conventions of discourse. I am not entitled to your words, and you are not entitled to my silence.
In civilized society, yes, people are entitled to be left alone when they ask to be left alone. I am not entitled to your general silence, but you are not entitled to keep bugging me. Please go away.
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you owe me nothing, and of course I'm not entitled to interaction from you, on any terms. I've said twice, and now I say a third time, that you can stop interacting with me any time you like. But while you choose to interact with me, I am free to point out when you're violating conventions of discourse. I am not entitled to your words, and you are not entitled to my silence.
In civilized society, yes, people are entitled to be left alone when they ask to be left alone. I am not entitled to your general silence, but you are not entitled to keep bugging me. Please go away.
I consider that I'm entitled to keep talking to you, as long as you keep talking to me. It chafes to be told otherwise. On top of that, you're asking me to do something that you could have accomplished yourself, by simply not asking me to do it. That feels like some kind of bizarre power grab.
These things make me want to push back and do the opposite of what you want, just to annoy you.
However, very well: I will not reply to you again in this thread, even if you choose to reply to me.
I don't intend to deliberately avoid replying to you in future.
Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University
#700I think the world would be better if, before you're allowed to respond to someone being wrong, you have to first be able to express their position in a way that they agree represents their view. Because 'political correctness' isn't the cancer at the heart of social politics, it is straw-manning. On both sides of every issue. I'd be surprised, perhaps even amazed, if Dr Piper had represented the complaint in any way…
I suspect this was completely honest. You will not believe what comes out of the mouths of some of these students. Straw-manning is necessary; do you think either participant or the audience has the patience to sit and thoughtfully and carefully consider all sides of any issue in any debate? If that debate were publicized nobody would watch it. And it's a prisoner's dilemma. If you try to be respectful and thoughtful…
> Straw-manning is necessary
Take the high road, will ya
> Some positions are simply not worth discussing thoughtfully
Like yours? Very humble.
> there's no use respecting that view, it's far too extreme
ideals, you should know what those are