All your children belong to us!

[crispybits]

What bit of "agnostic", as in "I'm totally not sure of wtf is out there", qualifies as "had it completely figured out"?

And sorry, I should have posted youtube videos of lots of random people saying they'd not been converted by religious schools, followed my more youtube videos of priests praying in front of disinterested school classes, in order to somehow make my point maybe?

[AAFitz]

What bit of "agnostic", as in "I'm totally not sure of wtf is out there", qualifies as "had it completely figured out"?

And sorry, I should have posted youtube videos of lots of random people saying they'd not been converted by religious schools, followed my more youtube videos of priests praying in front of disinterested school classes, in order to somehow make my point maybe?

Phatty has said before that his faith has changed over the years, but I think its very clear he was quite certain he was right the whole time...just as he gets proved wrong in the future, he will change and be right then.... some people are just like that.

You did mention agnostic atheist though. (which a moron could take to mean completely figured out) If you used just agnostic, Id have pointed that out before you even got to it.

[AAFitz]

lulz

I'm not sure exactly what post of mine you are talking about, or the thread title? but I have not used Liberal in the sense of "new ideas", and this thread still is not about indoctrination.


Separately, let's see if your opinion holds up when we change the ideology.

Let's say there is a school where there are 33 Roman Catholic professors to each Atheist professor. Are we still going to say that just because the school is absolutely dominated by Roman Catholics doesn't mean that anyone is likely to be influenced by Roman Catholicism? Or that they will be influenced by Atheism just as much? Or that a certain ideology dominating an environment has no impact on the people who are there all day every day, year after year after year after year?

Or take it even further, lets say all the teachers are Withes in the traditional sense, not the wizard of oz sense...would there be influence? Perhaps, would it be hogwarts, I really doubt it.

Professors are some of the most educated people on the planet. They studied subjects like history and science, because they wanted to study it. It is the information itself that has the most impact on students, and while a good teacher can influence the meek, on the whole people make up their own minds based on the information they have seen...and by what they choose to believe. In essence, as I already answered why professors are liberal, and its because they have studied and educated themselves.

[crispybits]

What bit of "agnostic", as in "I'm totally not sure of wtf is out there", qualifies as "had it completely figured out"?

And sorry, I should have posted youtube videos of lots of random people saying they'd not been converted by religious schools, followed my more youtube videos of priests praying in front of disinterested school classes, in order to somehow make my point maybe?

Phatty has said before that his faith has changed over the years, but I think its very clear he was quite certain he was right the whole time...just as he gets proved wrong in the future, he will change and be right then.... some people are just like that.

You did mention agnostic atheist though. (which a moron could take to mean completely figured out) If you used just agnostic, Id have pointed that out before you even got to it.

I mentioned agnostic atheist in the post for how I left at 17, he was referencing my beliefs at age 11, when I clearly stated simply agnostic. I also don't claim to be right, just happy to avoid wherever possible being wrong - "I don't know", when honest, is a better answer than "I know and it's.... etc"

[thegreekdog]

I have not read the whole thread, ut the answeris really obvious and irrelevant to polotocs. Byy definition, liberal means challengng the status qui, boundaries. Coservqatives acccept the stutusquo. Professos are inherently gearedto get people to think, which necessarily means asking people to challenge their thinking.

I don't think conservative means what you think it means.

My point actually holds, regardless.

Kids tend to reflect (no matter how they deny it..) their parent's views. Because our society has been progressively moving to the right more and more, kids today/young people today are more likely to be termed "conservative" than "liberal". A GOOD professor will always try to get kids to think beyond what they have previously been taught in various ways. Sometimes it is professors that truly are liberal presenting their own views and sometimes its professors just plain getting kids to think...and being labeled liberal.

Other than that, if you read a lot of the more virulent "conservative" (aka right wing) rhetoric, there is a marked disdain for any but specific types of "useful" education... math, some (and only some) science, business. Folks don't tend to want to teach subjects they disdain.

In this context, liberal means "statist" with respect to fiscal policy and "not statist" with respect to social policy (mostly). Liberal does not mean, in this context, "open to new ideas."

In this context, conservative means "not statist" with respect to fiscal policy and "statist" with respect to social policy (mostly). Conservative does not mean, in this context, "closed to new ideas."

That's why you and AAFitz aren't making good arguments (or at least you aren't making relevant arguments). Sure, good professors will challenge your way of thinking, but that doesn't mean they are politically inclined to the left.

Trying to ignore that the conservative right, very much is intent on stagnating if not reverting social policy, and using the fiscal policy to do so, makes your argument..laughable.

Okay! Thanks for agreeing with me.

[AAFitz]

Okay! Thanks for agreeing with me.

Well, I agree that your argument is funny. Not george carlin funny mind you...more like george bush funny.

Sorry....

[thegreekdog]

Okay! Thanks for agreeing with me.

Well, I agree that your argument is funny. Not george carlin funny mind you...more like george bush funny.

Sorry....

No, you agree with me. Let me help you.

all I want to do here is show that college tilts people to the Left.

I fully agree. I feel the more education one gets, the more history one reads about, and the more science one studies, it is almost a guaranteed certainty that they start to see overly conservative views for what they are.

Hell, in essence learning is liberal, and conservative is the exact opposite. Though, given the efforts of the conservative extremists, I feel the word conservative is wrongly used, as they are hardly trying to keep status quo, but instead are working to revert society back towards its more manageable form....and doing amazingly well at it to boot, unfortunately.

There's a reason Texas works so hard to change history books, and they are definitely not trying to make them more accurate. They are clearly trying to hide and misinform the public as to the actual harm if not crime overly conservative governments have inflicted on the people.

Despite all my bullshit, which mostly is in response to your wild bullshit, in reality my views are more liberal than conservative, mostly stemming from my knowledge of history, and the more I research it, the more the situation becomes more clear. And I know fully well, that no version of history is perfect, but certainly with enough sources and an unbiased view, one can see the facts for about what they are or were, and I personally am astonished at how people misinterpret them every day.

I suppose that is the definition of the phrase, "those who ignore history, are bound to repeat it" and you sir are the exact person they were speaking of, when they wrote it.

No doubt, youd love to indoctrinate everyone with your more than biased videos, and articles, but luckily we do have some of the most educated people in the world, and many of them, see through the bullshit after years of study, and able to pass on some of that education to those who would have been blinded without it.

Everything in bold is where you discuss liberal v. conservative as it relates to learning. Everything after that is where you discuss liberal v. conservative from a political perspective. Teaching someone an idea that they have not heard before is liberal from a learning perspective; and I expect all teachers to do this. Teaching someone a liberal or conservative idea is not liberal from a learning perspective.

So, for example, taking evolution out of a text book is not liberal from a teaching perspective; it's conservative from a teaching perspective. And some political conservatives believe you shouldn't teach evolution. Those are separate items. I think you want to make them the same; in other words:

(1) An effective teacher will teach something that the students don't know and is therefore a liberal teach - agree.
(2) An effective teacher will teach something that is liberally politically - disagree.

And you disagree with (2) as well, you just can't admit it because you are liberal-leaning politically (according to the post above).

So let's test it - If I taught a course on the benefits of an unregulated free market, would I be a liberal professor or a conservative professor?

[Lootifer]

P.S. You thought you had your religion completely figured out at 11 years old? Was that before you hit puberty, or after?

I invented a little triple A signature/tag type thing pre-puberty. It stood for Agnostic Anarchaic Atheist.

[Phatscotty]

I agree too. the more college a person attends, the more Liberal they are likely to become.

[Phatscotty]

Phatty has said before that his faith has changed over the years, but I think its very clear he was quite certain he was right the whole time...just as he gets proved wrong in the future, he will change and be right then.... some people are just like that.

Are you saying I changed my religion and my beliefs, because the religion I believe in was too correct? And religion is not about being right or wrong LULZ.

More likely are you just trying to take a cheap shot that doesn't even make sense

[Phatscotty]

Anecdotal: I went to a catholic school exclusively taught by priests from 11-17. When I arrived there I was completely agnostic, now I'm agnostic atheist with wild guesses about pantheism if the supernatural does turn out to be real one day. Go figure...

So your Catholic school did not convert you to Catholicism?

That figures then that Catholic schools do not have a religious impact on anyone.



P.S. You thought you had your religion completely figured out at 11 years old? Was that before you hit puberty, or after?

Youre laughing at him? Youre a grown adult and you still believe the bullshit! And brag about it.

??? I don't see anyone laughing but you

[Phatscotty]

And sorry, I should have posted youtube videos of lots of random people saying they'd not been converted by religious schools, followed my more youtube videos of priests praying in front of disinterested school classes, in order to somehow make my point maybe?

You don't think examples enhance points? make communication more fluent and fruitful? help explain more clearly? You don't think it says something about a point when an example cannot be provided?

[crispybits]

I think that evidence is useful, I also think that random youtube videos, made under unknown and variable conditions with potential selective editing of the material and no scientific or political standards for neutrality, integrity or balance, are not admissable as "evidence" of anything.

[PLAYER57832]

No, our remarks are relevant, but you disagree.

Let's find out if your remarks are relevant. I know! We can do one of two things (or both).

First, let's look at the PDF. Oh look! They are talking about liberal in the political context! To be fair, I already read the PDF.

Second, let's ask Phatscotty. Phatscotty - are you talking about liberal in the political context or liberal in the context of "new ideas?"

No, you misunderstand entirely.

Professors will virtually ALWAYS be liberal for two reasons, because whatever the definition of liberal and conservative are, professors will virtually always stretch the boundaries to the left. Also, by its definition, right wingers tend to put more emphasis on things other than higher level education.

The exception is a rather frightening one.. it is the move toward fascism or oligarchies. When liberals stop being allowed to challenge students, to teach them to THINK, then it means education has ceased to be education and is instead simply indoctrination.

Phattscotty and the like wish to claim that is what is happening, but that is because they see anything other than recitation of their personal beliefs to be a threat.

lulz

I'm not sure exactly what post of mine you are talking about, or the thread title? but I have not used Liberal in the sense of "new ideas", and this thread still is not about indoctrination.


Separately, let's see if your opinion holds up when we change the ideology.

Let's say there is a school where there are 33 Roman Catholic professors to each Atheist professor. Are we still going to say that just because the school is absolutely dominated by Roman Catholics doesn't mean that anyone is likely to be influenced by Roman Catholicism? Or that they will be influenced by Atheism just as much? Or that a certain ideology dominating an environment has no impact on the people who are there all day every day, year after year after year after year?

[/quote][/quote]
Of course they will be... but sometimes it will be to firmly reject the ideas presented.

Education is about teaching facts. how to challenge and question, how to research and find ideas. In your mode, everyone would be taught to think Phattscotyisms. That is not education, it is indoctrination, but you don't see that because, to you, indoctrination is only when someone else teaches their ideas, not when its what you think.

In fact, ANY education system that teaches how to find and distinguish facts will result in adults with a variety of ideas and opinions. The context, the way to see those things, will vary to a point, but facts speak for themselves. The "new" move that you tout is not about liberalism or conservativism, it is about changing the basic idea of a fact.

[john9blue]

player, do you really think our schools are effectively teaching their students how to think critically?

[Nobunaga]

"Phatscottyism", she called it. That's funny.

Teaching in accord with my belief system would be what?... Nobunagism, I guess. Doesn't sound nearly as funny. Sounds more like a brain injury.

[PLAYER57832]

player, do you really think our schools are effectively teaching their students how to think critically?

No, but not because of liberalism, either neo or traditional liberalism, it is because of the conservative ideologues that we have to "focus on the 2 R's.. and NOTHING else, unless we maybe have extra time and money", along with pushes to cut money for everything except business support (and then mostly larger businesses, industry).


Add in that so many topics are "too controversial" and yes, you have a definite problem.

That said, college is a tad different. We still do have great colleges. Unfortunately, they have had to pick up more and more of the lacks in high school. And, losses in aid to students means that we are heading back toward the days when only the elite and maybe a VERY few of the "highly gifted" get to have college educations or any advanced education of any kind (trades included).

[PLAYER57832]

"Phatscottyism", she called it. That's funny.

Teaching in accord with my belief system would be what?... Nobunagism, I guess. Doesn't sounds nearly as funny. Sounds more like a brain injury.

You don't differ much, though I admit you are more likely to have read things you post, to have researched what you say.

[Nobunaga]

player, do you really think our schools are effectively teaching their students how to think critically?

No, but not because of liberalism, either neo or traditional liberalism, it is because of the conservative ideologues that we have to "focus on the 2 R's.. and NOTHING else, unless we maybe have extra time and money", along with pushes to cut money for everything except business support (and then mostly larger businesses, industry).


Add in that so many topics are "too controversial" and yes, you have a definite problem.

That said, college is a tad different. We still do have great colleges. Unfortunately, they have had to pick up more and more of the lacks in high school. And, losses in aid to students means that we are heading back toward the days when only the elite and maybe a VERY few of the "highly gifted" get to have college educations or any advanced education of any kind (trades included).

No worries Player. Common Core is going to fix those problems! The universities won't know what to do with so many outstanding critical thinkers in the coming years.

[Teflon Kris]

Why Are Professors Liberal

In your thing they might be - in the civilised world they are left-wing because they are intelligent and allowed to be

In your thing they obviously aren't fascists and it appears liberal is the only other superficial option

[chang50]

Why Are Professors Liberal

In your thing they might be - in the civilised world they are left-wing because they are intelligent and allowed to be

In your thing they obviously aren't fascists and it appears liberal is the only other superficial option

That's an excellent point,anyone Scotty doesn't consider liberal probably shouldn't be allowed to influence young minds..

[PLAYER57832]

player, do you really think our schools are effectively teaching their students how to think critically?

No, but not because of liberalism, either neo or traditional liberalism, it is because of the conservative ideologues that we have to "focus on the 2 R's.. and NOTHING else, unless we maybe have extra time and money", along with pushes to cut money for everything except business support (and then mostly larger businesses, industry).


Add in that so many topics are "too controversial" and yes, you have a definite problem.

That said, college is a tad different. We still do have great colleges. Unfortunately, they have had to pick up more and more of the lacks in high school. And, losses in aid to students means that we are heading back toward the days when only the elite and maybe a VERY few of the "highly gifted" get to have college educations or any advanced education of any kind (trades included).

No worries Player. Common Core is going to fix those problems! The universities won't know what to do with so many outstanding critical thinkers in the coming years.

I have not made up my mind about common core. I have concerns, but what I have seen so far has little to do with the things you are complaining about. Since we seem to be talking about two entirely different things, its hard to compare opinions.

[thegreekdog]

No, our remarks are relevant, but you disagree.

Let's find out if your remarks are relevant. I know! We can do one of two things (or both).

First, let's look at the PDF. Oh look! They are talking about liberal in the political context! To be fair, I already read the PDF.

Second, let's ask Phatscotty. Phatscotty - are you talking about liberal in the political context or liberal in the context of "new ideas?"

No, you misunderstand entirely.

Professors will virtually ALWAYS be liberal for two reasons, because whatever the definition of liberal and conservative are, professors will virtually always stretch the boundaries to the left. Also, by its definition, right wingers tend to put more emphasis on things other than higher level education.

The exception is a rather frightening one.. it is the move toward fascism or oligarchies. When liberals stop being allowed to challenge students, to teach them to THINK, then it means education has ceased to be education and is instead simply indoctrination.

Phattscotty and the like wish to claim that is what is happening, but that is because they see anything other than recitation of their personal beliefs to be a threat.

Again, you are interchangeably using two different definition sets for liberal and conservative. Let's assume that educators will challenge the status quo; what is the status quo? Is the status quo statist? Is the status quo "conservative" (political)?

Would a course on the unregulated free market be a challenge to the status quo at a place like Harvard or would it be reinforcing the status quo?

[BigBallinStalin]

If a 'liberal' position does not challenge the status quo, then are you saying that 'liberal' is actually 'conservative'?

For example, a (welfare) liberal stance supports further welfare programs. Welfare programs are part of the status quo of the USG. Therefore, that 'liberal' is actually conservative.

[thegreekdog]

If a 'liberal' position does not challenge the status quo, then are you saying that 'liberal' is actually 'conservative'?

For example, a (welfare) liberal stance supports further welfare programs. Welfare programs are part of the status quo of the USG. Therefore, that 'liberal' is actually conservative.

Well yeah... that's the problem with Player's argument. If I taught a class on the problems of pigovian taxation, two things would happen: (1) it would be an utter failure; and (2) it would greatly challenge the status quo. Therefore, I would be a liberal professor (under a non-political definition).