• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Argument About Pacifism in College Class

Status
Not open for further replies.
DocZinn, I don't disagree in the least with your statement.

I'd only add that IMO ANY college - left, right or middle - can be a danger in the absense of critical thinking ability.

AND the same thing applies outside of university.
 
By nature there really are no Pacifists,because even in your last throws while dieing, we are still fighting to live,or to hold on to as much life as we can before we leave.
 
Worse yet are the hypocrites that call for someone with a gun to come save - they won't fight for themselves, but they expect womeone else to do it for them. typical elitists, do as i say, not as i do, for I kow what's good for you. They are the worst sort of parasite.

This isn't just with gun ownership either. Every belief that Leftists hold involves their reliance on others to provide for them. In other words, they advocate a complete disconnection from personal responsability. Consider Hurricane Katrina. The socialist residents of New Orleans knew far in advance their town's levy system couldn't handle a major hurricane but rather than use state money to correct this they continued to funnel that money into welfare programs and such while planning to rely on the government to come to their rescue in the event of a hurricane like Katrina. And then when Katrina did strike the local and state governments both turned to the Federal government to bail them out. I know that many blame the Federal government for thier delayed response but if you stand for states' rights you also have to stand for states' responsabilities as well. The same does for individuals. If you want to have rights as an individual you should also take on responabilities for your actions as well. This includes one responsability to defend one's self and one's family.
 
It seems to me that you had a chance to preach the truth about guns to a class of people. What's wrong with that?
All to often people ask you to explain yourself, not to understand your views, but to find a way to attack or otherwise marginalize you.

He said what he intended: a perfectly good explaination of why upstanding citizens need appropriate tools to protect themselves & others from violent assaults by criminal predators.

They heard what they intended: the equivalent of a drug addict explaining how wonderful it is to get stoned and smell god in all the pretty colors.
 
ANY college - left, right or middle - can be a danger in the absense of critical thinking ability.
True, which is why it does matter that the overwhelming majority of professors in the social sciences (where things are more subjective) are leftists.

The problem is compounded by the fact that most of the bias takes the form not of direct statements of opinion, but very subtle (to those without the aforementioned ability) twists of meaning and choices of words that convey a particular view of a subject. Most of it isn't intentionally, or even consciously done.
 
I agree with you, DocZinn. The only indoctrination I've witnessed so far has been of this nature.
 
Like Ellesworth Toohey from "The Fountainhead". He's not really academic but he used the same approach.

JH
 
DocZinn said:
True, which is why it does matter that the overwhelming majority of professors in the social sciences (where things are more subjective) are leftists.
Again, we don't disagree.

I'm not so sure that calling themselves 'social sciences' instead of sociologists is an accurate choice of words. (The 'science of societies' becomes far more subjective and less accessable by the empirical methods of science than do physics, chemistry, biology, astronony & cosmology.)

But can we agree that departments of sociology do not define the political nature of a college or university (or at least, should not be the metric by which we judge it).

We should recognize that a university is not a sociology department. Instead, a university has many departments: physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, art, music, political science, psychology, economics, planning & public policy, etc, etc, all of which, I strongly assert, are less likely to be left leaning than the sociology department (says a person who was a sociology minor as an undergrad in the late 60's).

Those other departments are far more likely to reflect a political cross section of the nation as a whole. (And if one objects to that, then I have no empathy.)

And again I'll assert that regardless of the political make up of those departments in toto - right, left or middle - a student without critical thinking skills embarking there is in danger of indoctrination.

Nem
 
Sociology is a specific field. The "social sciences" (we can agree that it's somewhat of a misnomer) include Anthropology, Political Science, Economics, History, Linguistics, etc etc etc... The bias is in all of them.

We should recognize that a university is not a sociology department. Instead, a university has many departments: physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, art, music, political science, psychology, economics, planning & public policy, etc, etc, all of which, I strongly assert, are less likely to be left leaning than the sociology department (says a person who was a sociology minor as an undergrad in the late 60's).

Those other departments are far more likely to reflect a political cross section of the nation as a whole.
Still true, but those other departments, based on the much more objective nature of the subjects (except the ones you included that are social sciences) are far less liely to have a built-in political or idealogical bias that will be taken in by intellectually naive students.

SO, although the overall philosphy may average dead-center, that which most effects the students is overwhelmingly leftist.
 
SO, although the overall philosphy may average dead-center, that which most effects the students is overwhelmingly leftist.
No.

Sorry, Doc, but we parted agreement there.

Maybe sometime, I'll come back around and explain my position. Maybe not.

Doesn't really matter though.

By the way: the proper word is "affects".

Nem
 
If the word "Pacifist" means make peace, then I choose to make peace through superiour firepower. If my life, or the life of my family are ever in danger, I will stop the threat with any means neccessary. My life is more important than someone who wishes me harm, for I wish no harm on anyone. Not until they put my family and myself in harm's way against our will.
 
I agree with 50cal.

True pacifism is about peace, not impotence. The path of least harm is taken ... sometimes by Ghandi-like tolerance, sometimes by Patton-like superior firepower.

To not physically resist warrantless violence is cowardice, impotence, and slavery, if not outright facilitation of evil. Those who never, ever fight back are not pacifists, for they facilitate the continuation of violence.

True pacifism minimizes violence by any means necessary ... and if not acting will permit violence to continue, then strike now and stop the assaults (now and future). Thugs of all stripes will certainly continue assaulting unless someone gives them a good self-preserving reason to stop - or are stopped altogether.

"When you're good, you don't have to be violent. The technique almost takes the volence out of it."
- Announcer of the '94 Ultimate Fighting Championship

There's a reason Kung Fu was developed by "pacifist" monks.
 
Shaggycat:
LOL, I am really sorry for words missing. My liberal college blocks certain words that it considers violent. So sometimes in emails sent over the internet, the person who receives the email will get a broken message missing some key words. It really is a pain. I feel like I am in some communist occupied country. Dang liberals
Now that we have thoroughly debunked the idea of pacifism, let's get back to this issue. This censorship better not be coming from a public school. How can a public university even think of censoring private emails? :fire: Do they also censor your written letters?

Shaggy, is your school a public or private institution?
 
Ctdonath, very nice post. Excellent clarification. I'm sure that some would disagree, but I resonate with that view.

Fly320s (& Shaggycat), I'm curious about this censorship of emails issue, also.

Nem
 
Now that we have thoroughly debunked the idea of pacifism, let's get back to this issue. This censorship better not be coming from a public school. How can a public university even think of censoring private emails? Do they also censor your written letters?

Shaggy, is your school a public or private institution?

I go to a private university. I am on a track scholarship (800 and Mile) or else I might not have been at the school. Overall I like it, but rules like that are EXTREMELY frustrating. I feel like I am in high school sometimes, being censored so much. :fire:

But I love running and am thankful for the chance to use it to help pay for my education.
 
shaggycat--

use the following to email
http://www.gnupg.org/

you can encrypt your email in a fashion that would even give the NSA a run for its money. (and by its money of course I mean your tax dollars =)
Either way, no way are those b@st@rds are going to edit it. This of course relies on the fact that you aren't using THEIR computers. If you are using their computers (and can use the CDrom drive to boot) get this CD
http://theory.kaos.to/projects.html
it boots to a freeBSD-OS that blocks all incoming traffic and encrypts all egress traffic. Then securely browse to an mail service like yahoo.com

of course you could probably just use yahoo mail anyways since your school can't sensor that...

Anyway just a thought since you're living under a thumb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top