[Drjones]

Hi all.

I'm sure most of you have read at least one of my threads regarding my uber-liberal Ethnic Studies "professor."

I've gotten to the point now where pretty much everything he says and gives us to read goes in one ear and out the other.

You may recall my thread about the outright lies he told the class about guns and how I challenged him.

So many of his views are so out there, I consider it a waste of time to even listen and challenge him. I also don't believe a word he says, since he's lied before.

Not to mention the bookshelves in his office are lined with Marx-this and Marx-that books.

Is that bad of me?

[Graystar]

The only thing you can trust a liberal to do is what *HE* thinks is "best for all involved", regardless of whether that mean violating trust or principle.

[Smurfslayer]

...to not trust information you get from a source with a proven bad track record, regardless of the political affiliation, race, creed, religion, sex, idealogy, height, weight, hair color, etc...

What *exactly* is 'ethnic studies' ?

[Drjones]

What *exactly* is 'ethnic studies' ?

I've taken to calling it "White people are the root of all evil 101."


Seriously though, from my class syllabus:

"Through an interdisciplinary approach, introduces the four major American ethnic groups - black, American Indian, Asian American, Chicano. Focuses on themes common to all four groups (racism, economic and political oppressioin) and demonstrates the varied contributions of each culture to American social and economic life."

:rolleyes:

Notice the exclusion of whites. I guess because "white" isn't an ethnicity, right? :rolleyes:

[Devonai]

I do not envy your position, Herr Jones. You have to be smarter and more well read than your professor. I went to a Christian college where liberal bias was an afterthought, not a given. I've found THR to be an excellent source of like-minded educated people. I hope you field any thoughts you may have here in the future.

[Bruce H]

Do your research well Drjones. Call this fine instructor on every item he expounds on that is false. They win when we get tired of hearing then and quit paying attention. If for no other reason make the rest of your class at least pay some attention. Stay on professors like this like stink of feces. Eventually the pressure will cause them to self distruct. Watch carefully and be ready.

[benewton]

Why would one major in ethnic studies???

Too much time and money for something more serious/interesting?



Way back when, I took a history course to satisfy my liberal arts requirement just prior to my graduation. A physics major, in the same boat, and myself, a EE major, sat together, and compared grades and ect. Bitched, too, but kept mouths shut: an English history course, charting the transition into the industrial age, and not your basic gut course.

Toward the end of the semester, he finally realized that you didn't get a A unless you were a history major. He was ripped, I wasn't, since I'd long since learned to write 500 words for an essay test without any problem, and, besides, how long does it take to skim a boring book?

So, as he bitched, I asked: "Do you have a job offer?"

He said yes, we compared offered pay, and then, after a bit of consultation, decided that we really would prefer paper over plastic, which would be, more than likely, the next time we'd see our history majors.

And so it has been.

Right idea, getting an education, wrong field.

Never the less, best of luck to you!

[Ian]

I know what you mean, Drjones. I'm taking a class on constitutional law from a stereotypical "do it for the children!" socialist professor. It's finally gotten to the point that he flat out ignores anytihng I say, and just keeps on lecturing. I think I got through to a couple people, but some are just sheep beyond hope. Like the girl who called me a 'communist' after a class where I argued on behalf laissez-faire. :banghead:

Argue whenever you can, but sometimes it's just not worth it. Do you have any papers to write for your class? They could be a great place to make your points.

[Drjones]

Why would one major in ethnic studies???

I apologise if I gave the wrong impression:

I am not now, never have, nor ever would major in ethnic studies nor anything resembling it.

Besides; I honestly don't think they'd accept me as a professor: I'm white. :rolleyes: :scrutiny:


My major is International Business. Once upon a time, I was going to minor in french.

Glad I dropped that idea a long time ago. (Yes, even before the war.)

[Drjones]

Do you have any papers to write for your class? They could be a great place to make your points.

Thank you for the thought, but its of no use: He structures the essay prompts in such a way that its VERY difficult, if not impossible, to present a different view. But of course that's not intentional, right? :rolleyes:

Example: here's the prompt for the essay I SHOULD be working on right now:

"What roles have people of color played in shaping our society? What strategies have the employed in gaining access to and fulfilling these roles? What race/ethnic relations theory (in readings or lecture) best explains their experience?"


Combine that prompt with the fact that we are VERY limited in our use of sources from outside the class, and it doesn't exactly leave a whole lot of room for a different opinion.

Guess its better than the last essay, when we couldn't use ANY sources from outside the class. :banghead:

[Soap]

Call him out in class. When he spouts BS, call him out. Don't let the rest of the class live their lives believing stuff they heard in college. Challenge his assertions. Do not fear him.

[benewton]

Sorry about the assumption, but you know how that line goes. Story holds too, except, in your case, you've other majors to sub in.

Think of your current experience as learning how the other half feels: they are incapable of logical thought. And, likely like the poor, they'll be with us forever, so I guess it might be worth the pain.

Still, as a grunt engineer, I get to think what we all do about business majors....

On the other hand, you're into weapons, and unless I've missed something, you haven't actually used one in class, so you can't be all bad!

[Skunkabilly]

Heya, Doc!

>> I'm sure most of you have read at least one of my threads regarding my uber-liberal Ethnic Studies "professor."

Well...as long as he doesn't call himself a teacher. Remember, teachers TEACH. Professors PROFESS :p

>> Is that bad of me?

Yes, your job is to do well in the class, not to agree with him. I was in your shoes and was too prideful to do well and head-bobbed and eye-rolled my way through college and it reflected in my grades. :banghead:

>> I've taken to calling it "White people are the root of all evil 101."

As I was telling Daniel G. Flory, when in doubt, you cannot go wrong with these two answers in a liberal 'arts' course:
Answer #1: the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
Answer #2: white men, social stratification causing social anomie in the inner cities.

>> "Through an interdisciplinary approach, introduces the four major American ethnic groups - black, American Indian, Asian American, Chicano. Focuses on themes common to all four groups (racism, economic and political oppressioin) and demonstrates the varied contributions of each culture to American social and economic life."

In junior high, I was taught 'Chicano' was offensive...I think...:uhoh: And 'Asian-American' is a social group, not an ethnicity! :p

>> Notice the exclusion of whites. I guess because "white" isn't an ethnicity, right?

Actually I *think* it's a race, but don't quote me on that... :o

Doc, just do well in your classes. Don't get so jaded (like I was) your ruin your college experience. Wear subtle gun shirts like Beretta, HK, etc. and find your gun friends in class. I made 3 or 4 gun friends in my last quarter.

Remember, 'Liberal Arts' is neither liberal nor art.

[DRC]

DrJones,

The sad truth is that to pass the class you must see things the same as your professor or you will likely be failed. Sad but possibly true; however, there are ways to make points even in an essay with limited resources i.e. with your example you could always use Jesse Jackson as an icon and then throw in what his claim to fame is with just a twist of his exploitations thereof. Very intresting stuff and since it's your essay you can write it how you wish. I've done this kind of thing before and pissed a lot of people off but there wasn't much they could do (other than fail me) Truth is truth. No matter how you slice it, it comes up peanuts ;)

Take care,

DRC

[Standing Wolf]

I don't ever trust leftists: people who live lies will sooner or later live them at my expense.

[Soap]

I would disagree with DRC. All semester I've been scoring tons of victories over my leftist professor of my international studies class (yeah that make us business types take liberal tart classes). Not only did I defeat most of his (and those who agreed with him) points, I persuaded much of the class to my viewpoint. Almost a cult of personality if you will. Before each test or quiz, people gather around my desk to get the lowdown on the subject material. This isn't because I'm exceptional, but that I'm not afraid to speak up and that I'm hardened from debate on THR and TFL. By the way, I have something like a 98% in the class and I've never even so much as brought a pencil with me, except for tests and quizzes.

[MeekandMild]

The sad truth is that to pass the class you must see things the same as your professor or you will likely be failed.

Jonesey, I hate add to DRC's observations to further disillusion you but this professor is not interested in content of thought. He is trying to indoctrinate you in form of thought. He is trying to train you in the mental games which come from espousal of Marxist-Leninist dielectic.

Putting it another way, he doesn't care what facts or non facts you learn as long as he can nudge you toward the WAY of thinking. The content does not matter, rather what will get you a good grade is whether or not you espouse his prejudices, can express his shibboleths the way he does and whether you are able to think in a counter-intuitive manner.

By limiting the amount of actual material available he is forcing you to learn to think like him. Your only hope is to turn the rigidity and flaws in his thinking against him.

My suggestion is that you carefully learn what he is saying, listen and try to mimic it. You will learn three things, first how to intuitively spot Marxist dielectic so it will never slip up on you again and second you will learn how to survive in an alien and hostile environment where all your normal survival skills are useless. Third you will learn his peculiar vulnerabilities and if you are lucky you will learn how to turn his way of life against him so with redirection he turns on himself and destroys himself.

The "Book of Five Rings" might help you gain perspective here.

(I envy you! He is truly a teeny tiny petty tyrant of the most wonderful sort, just like Don Juan described to Don Carlos.)

[faustulus]

The class is called 'ethnic studies' I failed rocket science 101 but I am pretty sure if I saw that on the sylabus I wouldn't think it would have to do too much with "white' America. No 'white' is not an ethnic group.

Whether you should believe him or not really has more to do with the information. You should of course be skeptical but it is good to get another person's view on issues. It can't hurt.

[Drjones]

Meek and DRC nailed it.

Meek especially; your post could not possibly be more accurate and descriptive of him and his methods.

I felt exactly what you wrote, but never stated it so eloquently. :)

I got my essay back today, (actually started a thread on it for help!) and got NO CREDIT. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

HOWEVER, there were MANY other students who got no credit, even some who DID pander to him.

He is allowing me to rewrite it, but to "make sure I get the facts straight." Which means, "make sure to tell me how satan (whitey) kept all the coloreds down." Which unfortunately, I will have to do.

Regardless, his comments on my essay made it pretty clear his problem with my ideas.

I must admit that he does have some validity in his argument that I deviated from the prompt a bit, but EVERYONE in the class had a BIG problem with this essay for many reasons. (Meaning problems understanding what exactly he wanted, etc.)

Regardless, I definitely do NOT think I deserved absolutely NO credit.

He did tell me "don't despair; you are an exemplary writer." I just don't pander to his opinions. :rolleyes:

A thought also occurred to me: how pitiful and reprehensible he is; not only has he not made any room in the class for different opinions, but he structures the essays in ways that force the class to regurgitate his opinions and the drivel in the books, even while saying that "the essay should be a synthesis of your ideas."

He effectively silences those who argue with him. Even others have commented to me (since I'm the one who challenges him the most) how he "slams" me down in class.

A true waste of skin, as Pendragon would say. :fire: :fire:

[Soap]

Bring the essay to his superior. In one of my classes we motioned to get a teacher fired because of completely inconsistent and unreasonable grading habits. I don't think she works at Purdue anymore...

[MeekandMild]

Jonesy, it occurred to me you maybe have never read about Don Juan and Don Carlos. So here is a link about petty tyrants (http://fic.ic.org/cmag/98/2098.html).

Remember you are not just fighting for a grade here, you are fighting for your metaphorical life. Good luck.

[Battler]

My suggestion may rub some the wrong way (although mostly people who do not understand the material).

Defeat Marxist philosophy with some Rand. Ayn Rand's works contain the tools. Even the more basic books will give you something to do.

Some follow marx, some reject it, solely by reflex, they "feel" men should be slaves, or they "feel" men should be free, loosely, and can't argue their points.

A good marxist can, and could defeat you on emotion unless you take it to a more fundamental level.

I witnessed a Marxist and a Randite/Objectivist head to head in an email thing at work once. The Objectivist took it down to fundamentals at every level, identified that, logically, they were really disagreeing on any given point at a more fundamental level.

The final point of contention was that they would not agree over the existence of reality.

A good marxist/kantian philosopher will be logical, "logical", aside from accepting reality. Perhaps accepting that existence exists is itself a religious argument that I won't go into here. But rejecting it gives you some ways out of a logical corner, where you can teleport to safety at pretty much any point.

This lets you invert your hierarchy of knowledge. I.e. you can start with "I believe we should redistribute wealth for the children" and build your fundamentals DOWN from there, rationalize, etc.

University-type anti-intellectuals approach this with varying levels of skill. You may be able to get a professor to say the words "reality does not exist"; but more than likely you'll present your foe with a contradiction that he'll just accept with the line "life is full of contradictions", or call you a racist/idiot.

Many are actually taught (through repetition) some very effective evasion techniques - akin to skilled Debating where you are using the timing and structure in place of truth.

One useful one is (I don't know if it has a name), a sort of "staggered circular contradiction", where someone may contradict himself; but there are a couple of statements between the two points that contradict. It then takes YOU a couple of statements to get back to the first piece of information in the contradiction, by which time you've forgotten the prior piece.

I once tried to get a guy to cut it out by writing down key points on pieces of paper (i.e. "you can't have this one and this one"); but that's highly impractical for many reasons.

[pittspilot]

Wish I could feel sorry for you, but I am in law school (ack)

[Sactown]

Drjones,

Is this the same prof that also teaches the Politics of the Underrepresented course? Does he bear a resemblance to Lenin/John Malkovich? (I'm not kidding) Is/was he the head of the teacher's union at the university? That would be funny if that's the same prof I had teach the Politics of the Underrepresented Course, because all we really talked about were Marxists like Che Gueverra and his ilk.

[MicroBalrog]

I don't ever trust leftists: people who live lies will sooner or later live them at my expense

I'm a leftist. I even post on the Democratic Underground.:D

[DRC]

Hello there,

While I respect your ability to articualte on the subject matter you've spoken of I must say this. Ayn Rand???!!! Atlas Shrugged???!!! I tried to read this book and just couldn't. It was (imo) the most unintresting compilation of warped ideologies that I've ever tried to assimilate. Don't get me wrong your suggestion doesn't rub me the wrong way but I have to say that Ayn Rand hasn't a clue when it comes to defeating an ideology. All Rand did was take an idea, make it ones own by changing those ideas necessary to fashion the point and called it a justification of cause and effect (syligism comes to mind ;) Rand claims to know and no one is disagreeing since you can't argue a feeling (although it's based on what appears to be a reality of suffering)

Again, don't misunderstand. I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I'm saying that utilizing this type of fundamental arguement doesn't substantiate a supposition.

Now in English :) Fighting fire with fire doesn't really work well when the winds can change direction so easily. Arguements based on feelings can be argued infinitum and no common ground will ever be reached (and agreeing to disagree will only start a new arguement) Although Rand is an intresting character me thinks that a few too many cocktails were served, as well as some other ellicits, prior to Rands writings :) But that's only my opinion.

No, I would suggest taking the material allowed and simply intertwining the facts from other sources with references. This way you've followed the criteria the teacher has required and merely expounded on it for posterity sake. It works. If questioned about it simply say something like "I thought it was intresting so I put it in to keep peoples intrest in the crux of the essay." Profs don't know what hit them when they get this. They know they must agree but don't really know why (not unlike telling a joke that goes right over their heads) It's not what you write but how you write and present it that matters.

Take care folks and now I'm off to take several asprin after thinking about Ayn Rand :)

DRC

[2dogs]

Definition of a liberal.

[Battler]

Atlas Shrugged was a fictional book, try the others (philosophy, epistemology). Atlas Shrugged's fictional story is one that many people cannot get through - if nothing else, it's backwards to almost all other fiction - honest productive people are the heroes, altruists shown as disgusting scum.

But I do not understand the criticism you mean to apply to that which I was describing as logical argument. Starting with "I like to feed leedle children", and building socialism underneath to justify the means to this end is the upside-down thinking, and using intellectual evasion to dodge all the contradictions. Perhaps Rand's hatred of the Soviet Union triggered the same journey; but it led to intellectual practice of rejecting contradiction and accepting reality as absolute.


I don't see what telling you to argue toward fundamentals and using logic has to do with emotional argument - emotional argument is what I'm asking you to avoid.


What may not work is if you do not disagree with the fundamental premise of your professor's argument; but just disagree with him. Whether you happen to be right or not, you will not be able to consistently argue with him.

Let me pull one out of nowhere:

Say you're arguing about some sub-aspect of the redistribution of wealth. He's pro. You're anti.

A more fundamental point may be whether or not an individual is the property of "society", that that society has a moral claim on his life and his endeavors.

Now, I don't want to argue that one on that board. But when arguing with the professor, this is the fundamental point of contention. You agree that the "society" has a claim on a person's work or don't you?

I'm guessing the professor believes this, and it could be argued from FURTHER fundamentals. If you don't, that's your point of contention.

If you do agree with him on this, then you can squabble over tax percentages and such, squabbling over the implementation details of dividing up the plunder. Perhaps then you're arguing from some other position, that you happen to like < half, he likes > half (making this one up).

Consider at least, when arguing from the professor on something where you've accepted some common fundamental, what is the standard he's applying? What is yours? In either case, is one present and consistently applied? Or was the position chosen with some emotional basis? Are you just arguing which is nicer, the green shirt or the red shirt? Or is he dead wrong?


Strategy in general? Develop a toolbox for both the discovery and communication of truth. You should throw out fallacy and lies; but the ability to recognize same is itself a tool.



BTW - another trick in argument that is taught is attacking the weaker argument. It's easy on a forum, where you may have two adversaries and merely pick the weaker one. Or such an example could be provided within a single conversation element - e.g. one could answer this post with "ignore rand she's a slut", without having to acknowledge the second half of this post. That's just an example of course.


At the end of the day, though, just try to get good marks in the course. Keep your mind active, though. Getting a 4.0 by barking like a dog is probably worth it. But remember at the end of the day that you're not a dog and that barking isn't really for you.

[DRC]

Hello Battler,

"But I do not understand the criticism you mean to apply to that which I was describing as logical argument. Starting with "I like to feed leedle children", and building socialism underneath to justify the means to this end is the upside-down thinking, and using intellectual evasion to dodge all the contradictions. Perhaps Rand's hatred of the Soviet Union triggered the same journey; but it led to intellectual practice of rejecting contradiction and accepting reality as absolute."

Sorry. My bad. Rand seems to base an ideology on the hatred you spoke of would lend it more to subjective and less objective thinking. While I agree with the concept and perhaps even think in the same fashion in certain instances I do not subscribe to ideals based on only one way of thinking or ideas based on hatre of another idea, BUT perhaps I need to try to read some of Rands other works before I decided definitively for myself (I'll break out the Tylenol :).

Reality is absolute and I agree with that but then whose reality is another story. Let me explain; what reality is for you may be different for another because of their ideology. Ideology is merely an assessment of a reality based on ones perception. Perceptions are merely ideas compiled to base ones ideas on. In my opinion simply knowing right from wrong is more plausible as is understanding cause and effect (but like I said this is only my opinion)

I like your direction and commend you for your knowledge and understanding, BUT one thing we've both missed, I think, is that we're talking in a really bizzar language that some on this string don't recognize so lets work back toward basic language and plausible ideas that can both be understood and applied ;)

DrJones,

If you're writing an essay on ethnic icons, do so but dig up their past and throw that in as well (you'll be amazed at what you find) Like Jesse Jackson for instance. Do you know what his claim to fame really was? He was photographed while holding the dying Martin Luther King Jr. in his arms when he was in town looking to get a job with King. He didn't know King, had never met King (that I'm aware of) and didn't work for the man. He was looking for a job and got a photo taken that ended up in the national news papers and he exploited it.

Granted I realize your essay has different directions you must follow but this is just to give you an idea of what you can squeeze in without getting off topic in your paper. Maybe I'll think about your project and write an essay for example. Sounds fun. :)

For now take care and good luck.

DRC

[Kaylee]

Might I suggest a somewhat more basic look at this problem?

You are PAYING this man to spout drivel at you.
Easy solution.... STOP PAYING HIM.

Withdraw from the class. Make a point of telling the Dean why. (The department head may or may not be sympathetic.. in anything involving "Ethnic Studies" I'd guess your best bet would be to take it outside of the department).

If you REALLY want to make a point, you could write an article for the school paper, something like "Documented LIES from Professor X's DownWithWhitey Class" including his quotes (with class title and dates) and a reputable bibliography for backup. If the school paper won't publish it, try the city paper (most college towns I've been in take a rather weary look at college politics anyhow, and the chance to stick a couple needles in 'em wouldn't likely get passed up.)

Heck, better yet, send it FOX -- if your case is tight enough, say with recorded lectures containing VERIFIED LIES -- you could well drag him through the coals nationally. :evil:

My main point.. disagreeing with him in class is fighting on his turf, where he makes the rules. You want to win... widen the venue.

-K

[Battler]

"Reality is absolute and I agree with that but then whose reality is another story. Let me explain; what reality is for you may be different for another because of their ideology. Ideology is merely an assessment of a reality based on ones perception. Perceptions are merely ideas compiled to base ones ideas on. In my opinion simply knowing right from wrong is more plausible as is understanding cause and effect (but like I said this is only my opinion)"


I understand the position you are taking, you sound like a learned scholar of Kant. Do not take offense as I explain that this is the anti-reality position, the "there is a reality; but we're not really in it".

Don't take my mention of Kant as building a strawman. I am using it as shorthand for the paragraph above. Kant's written a bunch of books, consider invocation of his name to only mean in terms of the quote I put at the top.

This is the trick to get out of a corner/contradiction. "Gee, you're right, what I said doesn't add up - but that's okay, it does in MY reality".

Yes, you have a brain and senses that you use to PERCEIVE reality. But reality can be known, and you can know it. Now, you can be in error; but that error is a thing which itself can be known.

(I COULD have copped out and said that in my reality you agreed with every word I said).


I'm not going to suck this thread into a Kant vs. Reality thread. Reality is clearly our point of contention, as it was with an argument I described in a prior post.

I can tell you that in embracing the philosophy of Kant (which I guess is probably your professor's as well), you will have no basis with which to argue with him on any given topic.

Embracing this "my reality, your reality", is really a rejection of the idea of a correct answer. "His answer is as good as mine because it was said by a person, who also has a reality". Truth becomes as valid as a lie, when one rejects existence and objective truth. This idea was kind of expanded when you mentioned the disdain of Rand (a common one). . . . The Rand stuff is not based on the hatred of another idea; but there are ideas that are rejected. Without going into necessarily whether or not Rand was right: Accepting truth brings with it the rejection of the lie that will contradict that truth. To reject THIS is to reject knowledge, that something can be known - not that you may not have to work to gain that knowledge; but that the knowledge can ever be attained.

My prior example of contradictions can be reconciled under Kant. One can accept that while two things contradict in the same reality, we can have a few and they can settle in nicely alongside eachother.


Perhaps one could re-perceive one's reality so that the professor doesn't exist, or that he exists in another form where he happens to be saying things that do feel good?

[Battler]

For anyone who wishes this thread was in English:


Person A: "1 + 1 = 2"
Person B: "1 + 1 = 3"
Person C: "I don't know the answer, as I have yet to learn the math".
Person D: "I dislike how both person A & B think they have all the answers. What about 1+1 = 4? 1+1=5?"


Person A in this example happens to be right.

Person B happens to be in error; but he wants to know what 1+1 is and has indicated that he believes there is an answer, and that the answer can be known. His error (in this case, 1), itself can be known.

Person C has not indicated a rejection of the idea that 1+1 can be known, simply that he has not attempted to find it out. He can legitimately be critical of A and B's answer, as he should, until building a basis for acceptance of the knowable.

Person D ultimately contradicts himself, through rejection of knowledge.

"Man cannot know" must itself be accepted as knowledge to be applied to one's thought process. (Although, in defense of its proponents, it's usually delivered in the form: "The only thing you can know is that you can't know anything", in an attempt for the statement to provide an exception for itself.)

[DRC]

Hello Battler,

Good points all of them but perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. Perhaps we're more on the same page just coming from two different directions. As I tried to read Rand in Atlas Shrugged (keep in mind I didn't finish it and have not read any of the others so from that perspective I'm basing only on a small portion of first hand knowledge) what I gathered from the concepts (fiction or not) were...warped. If the other writings are based on ideals and written without an overwhelming biase I should probably read them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what I see you saying is what I had said previously in that right is right, wrong is wrong and cause and effect tell you which is which? If this is correct then we've both stated the same thing and I apologize if I've misunderstood or not made myself clear.

Your example (in English ;) for my purposes would read like this:

"Person A: "1 + 1 = 2" Person A is right.

"Person B: "1 + 1 = 3" Person B is wrong

"Person C: "I don't know the answer, as I have yet to learn the math"." Cause and effect. They want to learn first and the effect will be the right answer if taught correctly.

"Person D: "I dislike how both person A & B think they have all the answers. What about 1+1 = 4? 1+1=5?" Cause and effect. Rejecting the "idea" of right and wrong, black and white has in effect destined them to be wrong through flawed thinking and teaching.

Don't get me wrong I'm not arguing that these are the truth, my contention is that people such as DrJones prof is one that determines his own reality as it works for him not that this is how I believe it to be. DrJones prof is unfortunately in charge of the grades and the manner in which the essay is to be written, therefore, he has creatred a reality for "his class" to follow without redirection. Again cause and effect, by doing so the prof has effectively created and alternate reality and truth (although flawed by our standards) Since many in these classes cannot understand this since they are in the "Person C" stage of the game they will learn the profs reality and believe it to be true. That's my point not that I believe that alternate realities are fine or correct.

In a nutshell the professor is creating thinkers just like himself by limiting knowledge and the amount of resources to be used. For the most part his students will never think "outside the box" so to speak and whatever "reality" is taught to them they will believe even if it's not reality which then takes us right back to why liberals live in a dream world to begin with? I give you exhibit A, DrJones prof :) It's not my alternate reality, it's theirs and they teach this to others and that's scary, but also reality.

Take care and I enjoy the conversation.

DRC