RE: Progressive Education (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

MercTech -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 5:39:07 AM)

Rather like the corporate credo of "We Celebrate Diversity"
But they really mean, "We will allow diversities that are on the approved diversity list."



bounty44 -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 7:09:49 AM)

exactly so...

I had a phone interview once for a teaching position at a university and one of the interviewers asked me a question about diversity. I said something about diversity is not just a collection of people of different skin colors, sexual orientations and genders so long as they all more or less are in the same social/political camp...that true diversity was a matter of differing political and religious thought regardless of the aforementioned attributes.

you could have heard a pin drop, and I trust my candidacy was doomed from that point onwards.



joether -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 10:14:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
exactly so...

I had a phone interview once for a teaching position at a university and one of the interviewers asked me a question about diversity. I said something about diversity is not just a collection of people of different skin colors, sexual orientations and genders so long as they all more or less are in the same social/political camp...that true diversity was a matter of differing political and religious thought regardless of the aforementioned attributes.

you could have heard a pin drop, and I trust my candidacy was doomed from that point onwards.


Yeah, I have explained to small business owners looking to hire people that when asking 'open ended questions, to be ready for answers that you might not agree on. Or are so completely off in la-la land to make you wonder if your in the wrong dimension and not them. The ones that didn't believe me would call up days later to say it was true.

But diversity is not about shielding or hiding intolerance in its mist. Different political and/or religious views can create an unbalanced workplace. Particularly if someone is intolerant of a political and/or religious view/party/faith. I could take what you stated to mean 'my political/religious views are cast iron and should be protected....EVEN IF....someone might get offended to them.' Open ended questions do shed light on how a person thinks and views things.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 10:41:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
exactly so...

I had a phone interview once for a teaching position at a university and one of the interviewers asked me a question about diversity. I said something about diversity is not just a collection of people of different skin colors, sexual orientations and genders so long as they all more or less are in the same social/political camp...that true diversity was a matter of differing political and religious thought regardless of the aforementioned attributes.

you could have heard a pin drop, and I trust my candidacy was doomed from that point onwards.


Yeah, I have explained to small business owners looking to hire people that when asking 'open ended questions, to be ready for answers that you might not agree on. Or are so completely off in la-la land to make you wonder if your in the wrong dimension and not them. The ones that didn't believe me would call up days later to say it was true.

But diversity is not about shielding or hiding intolerance in its mist. Different political and/or religious views can create an unbalanced workplace. Particularly if someone is intolerant of a political and/or religious view/party/faith. I could take what you stated to mean 'my political/religious views are cast iron and should be protected....EVEN IF....someone might get offended to them.' Open ended questions do shed light on how a person thinks and views things.

The problem comes about when only one side...which seems the left wants to be...decides what is intolerant. Diversity is not a mix of races and cultures and faiths and genders espousing the same thing. Diversity is a mix of races, cultures, faiths and genders with differing viewpoints. Tolerance means I respect your views and do not try to harm you because of them or try to legislate you into my view.



joether -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 10:41:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Another example of the tolerance of different faiths preached for on those oh-so-tolerant campuses today:


That you think there is some sort of 'magical ward' of tolerance on a college campus is amusing, if not naive. The reason tolerance is often found there, is that sooner or later you will be challenged for your views on something. How you respond determines if you have learned anything more than a high school diploma. That the practice and usage of critical thinking skills takes place not in the classroom, but in the study halls and rec rooms on the campus. That students watch something on TV (like a news piece for example) and voice a view on it. To which one or more may give a contrary viewpoint. At which point, a discussion might be invoked. The differing sides presenting their viewpoints and supporting evidence that shows they have the more correct approach.

The tolerance is when you realize the person across from you is so 'iron bound' in their view that not only will they listen to no further reason, but that they insult you rather than giving a counter view to something you stated. Not giving in to the temptation to do the same, is developing skills in tolerance.

For example, when I completely own a certain-someone in a discussion he usually 'admits' defeat by saying "your just talking shit again'. If he had a decent argument to use towards mine, he would have used it. Rather than admit the view I have is a good one, he tries to insult me in a number of petty and immature ways. Its honestly rather amusing more than it is insulting.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
UCLA Judicial Council challenges Jewish Student on her faith. During the meeting, video...which has disappeared from YouTube...revealed this question: "Given that you are a Jewish Student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view as to your position?".
Now...imagine replacing that word 'Jewish' with 'Muslim' or 'gay'...does anybody else hear the outcry that would have provoked?


So what your telling me is there is a 'horrible' view by a 'liberal', on a video. But that video has mysteriously disappeared. How do I know your telling the whole and complete truth here? You have admitted you have no evidence to back up what your stating. Perhaps your memory of events is incorrect. When you say its correct, I say "Prove it". An now, you have to find the evidence.

From an employment perspective, an employer should not bring up one's religious faith, unless that faith has a direct impact on the job. For instance, hiring a Muslim to preach Christianity in a Methodist church. In most other circumstances, one's faith should not come up in the discussion. If it does, the person being interviewed should take that as a red flag, that the office politics could be hazardous. An now that interviewee has one more consideration on whether to accept the position or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
As you'll see in the story below, the council eventually put her on but ONLY after they initially rejected her...And it took the prodding of a faculty advisor to help them see more clearly.

The chancellor of the university made a brave statement:
The university’s chancellor, Gene D. Block, issued a statement denouncing the attacks on Ms. Beyda. “To assume that every member of a group can’t be impartial or is motivated by hatred is intellectually and morally unacceptable,” he said. “When hurtful stereotypes — of any group — are wielded to delegitimize others, we are all debased.”. One question though for the chancellor...where do you suppose students obtained views counter to yours? Views that deny the impartiality of a Jew? Or a conservative? Or a white, Christian male?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/debate-on-a-jewish-student-at-ucla.html?referrer=


You do forget many undergraduates are either still in their late teens or early twenties. They are going to make mistakes on wisdom calls all the time (that is why there are advisers whom are adults and facility). That they learn from other people how to act and react to things is why they are in school. Had I been in that room, I would have argued that the person's religious viewpoint will not matter. If she is adult and intelligent enough during an issue to which she would be bias, that she remove herself from the discussion. Or that her possible 'conflict of interest' by others is made known to her.

Yes, the student body on this council did a piss poor job. But your blaming the entire 29,000+ student body for the actions/words of only a handful that number below a dozen. When this errupted, it does sound like there were some heavy discussions on campus all over the place. That students took different approaches in attacking or defending what happen. Because of what those students did, allowed many other students to practice skills that would make them better in the future.

College campuses can be a really interesting place for those with an open mind.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 10:52:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Another example of the tolerance of different faiths preached for on those oh-so-tolerant campuses today:


That you think there is some sort of 'magical ward' of tolerance on a college campus is amusing, if not naive. The reason tolerance is often found there, is that sooner or later you will be challenged for your views on something. How you respond determines if you have learned anything more than a high school diploma. That the practice and usage of critical thinking skills takes place not in the classroom, but in the study halls and rec rooms on the campus. That students watch something on TV (like a news piece for example) and voice a view on it. To which one or more may give a contrary viewpoint. At which point, a discussion might be invoked. The differing sides presenting their viewpoints and supporting evidence that shows they have the more correct approach.

The tolerance is when you realize the person across from you is so 'iron bound' in their view that not only will they listen to no further reason, but that they insult you rather than giving a counter view to something you stated. Not giving in to the temptation to do the same, is developing skills in tolerance.

For example, when I completely own a certain-someone in a discussion he usually 'admits' defeat by saying "your just talking shit again'. If he had a decent argument to use towards mine, he would have used it. Rather than admit the view I have is a good one, he tries to insult me in a number of petty and immature ways. Its honestly rather amusing more than it is insulting.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
UCLA Judicial Council challenges Jewish Student on her faith. During the meeting, video...which has disappeared from YouTube...revealed this question: "Given that you are a Jewish Student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view as to your position?".
Now...imagine replacing that word 'Jewish' with 'Muslim' or 'gay'...does anybody else hear the outcry that would have provoked?


So what your telling me is there is a 'horrible' view by a 'liberal', on a video. But that video has mysteriously disappeared. How do I know your telling the whole and complete truth here? You have admitted you have no evidence to back up what your stating. Perhaps your memory of events is incorrect. When you say its correct, I say "Prove it". An now, you have to find the evidence.

From an employment perspective, an employer should not bring up one's religious faith, unless that faith has a direct impact on the job. For instance, hiring a Muslim to preach Christianity in a Methodist church. In most other circumstances, one's faith should not come up in the discussion. If it does, the person being interviewed should take that as a red flag, that the office politics could be hazardous. An now that interviewee has one more consideration on whether to accept the position or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
As you'll see in the story below, the council eventually put her on but ONLY after they initially rejected her...And it took the prodding of a faculty advisor to help them see more clearly.

The chancellor of the university made a brave statement:
The university’s chancellor, Gene D. Block, issued a statement denouncing the attacks on Ms. Beyda. “To assume that every member of a group can’t be impartial or is motivated by hatred is intellectually and morally unacceptable,” he said. “When hurtful stereotypes — of any group — are wielded to delegitimize others, we are all debased.”. One question though for the chancellor...where do you suppose students obtained views counter to yours? Views that deny the impartiality of a Jew? Or a conservative? Or a white, Christian male?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/debate-on-a-jewish-student-at-ucla.html?referrer=


You do forget many undergraduates are either still in their late teens or early twenties. They are going to make mistakes on wisdom calls all the time (that is why there are advisers whom are adults and facility). That they learn from other people how to act and react to things is why they are in school. Had I been in that room, I would have argued that the person's religious viewpoint will not matter. If she is adult and intelligent enough during an issue to which she would be bias, that she remove herself from the discussion. Or that her possible 'conflict of interest' by others is made known to her.

Yes, the student body on this council did a piss poor job. But your blaming the entire 29,000+ student body for the actions/words of only a handful that number below a dozen. When this errupted, it does sound like there were some heavy discussions on campus all over the place. That students took different approaches in attacking or defending what happen. Because of what those students did, allowed many other students to practice skills that would make them better in the future.

College campuses can be a really interesting place for those with an open mind.
But...As you soon discovered, joether...the video WAS to be found in the cite I used. If it had not been AND the only evidence I had were someone's "word" is that this is what was said, I would not have used it. So, I did present evidence.

As for your comments about holding others accountable, nowhere did I state that every single other person on campus felt that way...in fact, I made a point of quoting the Chancellor's words regarding his feelings on the matter. But yes, I did note that many on the campus...As noted in the article...had been exposed to anti-Israeli material on campus. Material that ...if it were anti-Muslim or anti-gay...would have been removed immediately.

Notin



joether -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 10:54:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
exactly so...

I had a phone interview once for a teaching position at a university and one of the interviewers asked me a question about diversity. I said something about diversity is not just a collection of people of different skin colors, sexual orientations and genders so long as they all more or less are in the same social/political camp...that true diversity was a matter of differing political and religious thought regardless of the aforementioned attributes.

you could have heard a pin drop, and I trust my candidacy was doomed from that point onwards.


Yeah, I have explained to small business owners looking to hire people that when asking 'open ended questions, to be ready for answers that you might not agree on. Or are so completely off in la-la land to make you wonder if your in the wrong dimension and not them. The ones that didn't believe me would call up days later to say it was true.

But diversity is not about shielding or hiding intolerance in its mist. Different political and/or religious views can create an unbalanced workplace. Particularly if someone is intolerant of a political and/or religious view/party/faith. I could take what you stated to mean 'my political/religious views are cast iron and should be protected....EVEN IF....someone might get offended to them.' Open ended questions do shed light on how a person thinks and views things.

The problem comes about when only one side...which seems the left wants to be...decides what is intolerant. Diversity is not a mix of races and cultures and faiths and genders espousing the same thing. Diversity is a mix of races, cultures, faiths and genders with differing viewpoints. Tolerance means I respect your views and do not try to harm you because of them or try to legislate you into my view.


Its curious that you keep trying to claim the left are more evil than the right. It comes up often in your word. Not just here but in other publications. That often the determination is to push concepts that are flimsy and silly and just begging to be countered with a reasonable viewpoint. When that viewpoint comes forth, you attack it, and thus, show the right to be intolerant.

Is it not possible for more than one side, to decide if something is intolerant or not? Comes up all the time in politics. One side attacks the President over something, the other attacks Congress over something. Can both be right? Can both be intolerant? Possible....

What your stating is tolerance comes down to philosophy meets biology. Even though the root of biology is based in part from philosophy. Should you tolerate someone that is being intolerant? I would say 'no'. Should gay marriage, for example, be allowed in all 50 states? I would say 'yes'. However, there are those in the remaining 13-14 states whom say the rest of the nation should be tolerant of their religious viewpoints. Both sides consider the other's to be intolerant, and thus, resist harmony. Whom is to blame for being....REALLY....intolerant?

The American legal system has come a long way from its creation 239 years ago. And even from common law establish before the United States existed. Is it a perfect system? Not really. That it has had to change for good and bad reasons, shows too, how the legal system is better 'now' from 'then'. Could it be better? Of course it could be. An it takes discussions to do such.

But don't come on here, and assume the left are solely guilty for one thing or another. Yes, they are guilty on things and subjects; but the right isn't exactly a pack of saints either! Likewise the level of 'intolerance' by those on the left is a tiny fraction compared to those on the right; or have you never gone to a modern day, Tea Party rally? Its usually chalked full of hatred, racism, and intolerance towards other viewpoints. It wouldn't take me long to bring up many times more in examples of the right being intolerant than the left. So, dispense with the bullshit if you could....



joether -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 11:17:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
But...As you soon discovered, joether...the video WAS to be found in the cite I used. If it had not been AND the only evidence I had were someone's "word" is that this is what was said, I would not have used it. So, I did present evidence.


Most business majors are trained on 'how to handle interview questions'. Most of the other majors never get this level of exposure to business practices for obvious reasons. In my view, these students really should have shut up and seek out a business professor to advise them on how to approach a more legal and considerate interviewing process. But that's why they are on campus...to learn things!

I think I missed the video, so I apologize on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
As for your comments about holding others accountable, nowhere did I state that every single other person on campus felt that way...in fact, I made a point of quoting the Chancellor's words regarding his feelings on the matter. But yes, I did note that many on the campus...As noted in the article...had been exposed to anti-Israeli material on campus. Material that ...if it were anti-Muslim or anti-gay...would have been removed immediately.


You stated your contempt for liberal/left campuses in the very first line fo the post I responded to. I will even give it here, for your reference:

Another example of the tolerance of different faiths preached for on those oh-so-tolerant campuses today:

The way you state this, was as an attack on the left. That you quoted the adviser is irrelevant. I could quote Hitler, and say the whole nation he ran was a good or bad one. Does that mean the whole nation of people under him is good or bad? There are subtleties to what you are stating. Some on this forum would not even realize what you stated above in the line I'm quoting to be wrong.

Take it from someone that has lived in the dormitories of a major university. I was exposed to....MANY...viewpoints. Just walking from my dorm room to class each day. Some of which I might agree on, others I didn't. Most were on a neutral subject matter. I have sat in on discussions that were both dull and very aggressive (ending in a fist fight no less). I can understand the subject your presenting. But your presenting it not as it existed, but as a 'gotcha' moment to attack liberals as a whole.

What those people on that council was wrong. And I suspect they took a good 'thumping' from classmates and those on campus for being ignorant on the law and normal business processes. I think I have stated that position quite clearly so far. I suspect such things will happen on other college campuses as time goes on. But to state that liberals and/or 'the left' are intolerant, and more so of conservatives/libertarians and/or 'the right', is silly.

Here is a nice little site. You can agree or disagree with what the authors state. Yet, the information they are basing their view on usually seems pretty vetted. You can find it here. I don't have to look into liberal sites to find examples of 'the right' of being intolerant, I can open the newspaper or check on dozens of news sites.

I'm fine with you bring this issue up; so long as your holding 'the right' equally accountable and responsible. An you are not doing that.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 11:42:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
exactly so...

I had a phone interview once for a teaching position at a university and one of the interviewers asked me a question about diversity. I said something about diversity is not just a collection of people of different skin colors, sexual orientations and genders so long as they all more or less are in the same social/political camp...that true diversity was a matter of differing political and religious thought regardless of the aforementioned attributes.

you could have heard a pin drop, and I trust my candidacy was doomed from that point onwards.


Yeah, I have explained to small business owners looking to hire people that when asking 'open ended questions, to be ready for answers that you might not agree on. Or are so completely off in la-la land to make you wonder if your in the wrong dimension and not them. The ones that didn't believe me would call up days later to say it was true.

But diversity is not about shielding or hiding intolerance in its mist. Different political and/or religious views can create an unbalanced workplace. Particularly if someone is intolerant of a political and/or religious view/party/faith. I could take what you stated to mean 'my political/religious views are cast iron and should be protected....EVEN IF....someone might get offended to them.' Open ended questions do shed light on how a person thinks and views things.

The problem comes about when only one side...which seems the left wants to be...decides what is intolerant. Diversity is not a mix of races and cultures and faiths and genders espousing the same thing. Diversity is a mix of races, cultures, faiths and genders with differing viewpoints. Tolerance means I respect your views and do not try to harm you because of them or try to legislate you into my view.


Its curious that you keep trying to claim the left are more evil than the right. It comes up often in your word. Not just here but in other publications. That often the determination is to push concepts that are flimsy and silly and just begging to be countered with a reasonable viewpoint. When that viewpoint comes forth, you attack it, and thus, show the right to be intolerant.

Is it not possible for more than one side, to decide if something is intolerant or not? Comes up all the time in politics. One side attacks the President over something, the other attacks Congress over something. Can both be right? Can both be intolerant? Possible....

What your stating is tolerance comes down to philosophy meets biology. Even though the root of biology is based in part from philosophy. Should you tolerate someone that is being intolerant? I would say 'no'. Should gay marriage, for example, be allowed in all 50 states? I would say 'yes'. However, there are those in the remaining 13-14 states whom say the rest of the nation should be tolerant of their religious viewpoints. Both sides consider the other's to be intolerant, and thus, resist harmony. Whom is to blame for being....REALLY....intolerant?

The American legal system has come a long way from its creation 239 years ago. And even from common law establish before the United States existed. Is it a perfect system? Not really. That it has had to change for good and bad reasons, shows too, how the legal system is better 'now' from 'then'. Could it be better? Of course it could be. An it takes discussions to do such.

But don't come on here, and assume the left are solely guilty for one thing or another. Yes, they are guilty on things and subjects; but the right isn't exactly a pack of saints either! Likewise the level of 'intolerance' by those on the left is a tiny fraction compared to those on the right; or have you never gone to a modern day, Tea Party rally? Its usually chalked full of hatred, racism, and intolerance towards other viewpoints. It wouldn't take me long to bring up many times more in examples of the right being intolerant than the left. So, dispense with the bullshit if you could....

First joether...you want to dispense with with bullshit? Then stop stating that I've said things that I have not said. Bring me the post wherein I said the left is evil.

And no, joether...one side does not get to say what is intolerant. Intolerance is already defined: lack of tolerance; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own. I don't care if Joe wants to marry Steve and I don't care if Julie wants to spend her days in wedded bliss to Kay. I don't care if one of them wants to work for me. That's my viewpoint. That's tolerance as defined legally and in my perspective. But if I choose to not run with a gay crowd on my personal time, that's me exercising my right to be tolerant of their lifestyle and their right to have a life without fear of me while maintaining my preferance not to associate with that life.
Harking back to the intolerance...Rand Paul has every right to disagree with the gay lifestyle and gay marriage. But, unless he comes harmed with facts proving how harmful the gay lifestyle or gay marriage is to society, he's got NO basis for legislation against it, as I just got thru saying elsewhere.

Expression of difference is not intolerance...legislation to back up your feelings is intolerance. My calling a gay person a "fruit" is not intolerance...it's stupid, it's useless, it's outdated...But it's not intolerant. Me trying to legislate their lifestyle such that it becomes against the law, is. Lucy stated she is against war. That's her viewpoint. Others have a differing viewpoint. As long as she is not attempting to make war for any reason illegal and people who support it criminal, she's being tolerant of others viewpoints. If she feels that ONLY her viewpoint is correct and tries to legislate based on that feeling ALONE, then like Rand Paul, she'd be wrong.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Progressive Education (3/10/2015 3:50:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
But...As you soon discovered, joether...the video WAS to be found in the cite I used. If it had not been AND the only evidence I had were someone's "word" is that this is what was said, I would not have used it. So, I did present evidence.


Most business majors are trained on 'how to handle interview questions'. Most of the other majors never get this level of exposure to business practices for obvious reasons. In my view, these students really should have shut up and seek out a business professor to advise them on how to approach a more legal and considerate interviewing process. But that's why they are on campus...to learn things!

I think I missed the video, so I apologize on that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
As for your comments about holding others accountable, nowhere did I state that every single other person on campus felt that way...in fact, I made a point of quoting the Chancellor's words regarding his feelings on the matter. But yes, I did note that many on the campus...As noted in the article...had been exposed to anti-Israeli material on campus. Material that ...if it were anti-Muslim or anti-gay...would have been removed immediately.


You stated your contempt for liberal/left campuses in the very first line fo the post I responded to. I will even give it here, for your reference:

Another example of the tolerance of different faiths preached for on those oh-so-tolerant campuses today:

The way you state this, was as an attack on the left. That you quoted the adviser is irrelevant. I could quote Hitler, and say the whole nation he ran was a good or bad one. Does that mean the whole nation of people under him is good or bad? There are subtleties to what you are stating. Some on this forum would not even realize what you stated above in the line I'm quoting to be wrong.


What about that quote makes it wrong, joether? That is what many, if not most, campuses proudly proclaim that they have a commitment to racial tolerance, cultural diversity and social justice...". Sounds o.k., doesn't it? Until they add this (parenthesis mine): "(this commitment)will require every member of this community to ensure that the principles of these ideals be mirrored in their attitudes and behaviors.” (Emphasis added.) (Schippensburg University). It was the second part that got the University sued successfully in 2003.
http://www.thefire.org/fire-guides/fires-guide-to-first-year-orientation-and-thought-reform-on-campus/fires-guide-to-first-year-orientation-and-thought-reform-on-campus-full-text/
quote:


Take it from someone that has lived in the dormitories of a major university. I was exposed to....MANY...viewpoints. Just walking from my dorm room to class each day. Some of which I might agree on, others I didn't. Most were on a neutral subject matter. I have sat in on discussions that were both dull and very aggressive (ending in a fist fight no less). I can understand the subject your presenting. But your presenting it not as it existed, but as a 'gotcha' moment to attack liberals as a whole.
Hate to tell you this, joether, but in this forum, most of the topics...and many of the 'citation posts'... are "gotcha" moments meant to illustrate a point of demonstration of the the opposing sides thoughts

What those people on that council was wrong. And I suspect they took a good 'thumping' from classmates and those on campus for being ignorant on the law and normal business processes. I think I have stated that position quite clearly so far. I suspect such things will happen on other college campuses as time goes on. But to state that liberals and/or 'the left' are intolerant, and more so of conservatives/libertarians and/or 'the right', is silly.

Here is a nice little site. You can agree or disagree with what the authors state. Yet, the information they are basing their view on usually seems pretty vetted. You can find it here. I don't have to look into liberal sites to find examples of 'the right' of being intolerant, I can open the newspaper or check on dozens of news sites.

I'm fine with you bring this issue up; so long as your holding 'the right' equally accountable and responsible. An you are not doing that.
Your nice little site? It uses this as their logo:
[image]http://aattp.org/wp-content/wptouch-data/uploads/aattplogo.png[/image]. Their information is vetted by who? Other nice little sites like that? Very neutral, joether.

As for my preponderance of examples from the left or holding the right equally as accountable...tell you what, joether: You name one thread in P AND R in which you bring up bad antics of the left and/or hold the left equally accountable and then have someone else note that you did just that. But until you do that, do you really think whether or not you're fine with me...or anybody from the right...bringing these things up matters? In other words, try holding yourself to your own standards before you hold me to them. If what I've asked you to do above is too hard, try something simpler: I took Rand Paul to task for his views...either on this thread or another one...and he is on the right. How about you show me where you've done that with someone on the left?



Kirata -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 11:06:10 AM)


>You do forget many undergraduates are either still in their late teens or early twenties. They are going to make mistakes on wisdom calls all the time...

I found this observation interesting, and of course correct. The human brain is not fully mature until the early-mid 20s, and the areas that mediate judgment and risk-assessment are the last to reach full development. Needless to say, that explains a lot of teenage behavior. But it also raises the question of why the U.S. ever let itself be sold on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The outcry at the time, based on eligibility for military service, was "Old enough to die, old enough to vote!" which is rather obviously a non sequitur. Is it something in the water?

K.






joether -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 11:21:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
exactly so...

I had a phone interview once for a teaching position at a university and one of the interviewers asked me a question about diversity. I said something about diversity is not just a collection of people of different skin colors, sexual orientations and genders so long as they all more or less are in the same social/political camp...that true diversity was a matter of differing political and religious thought regardless of the aforementioned attributes.

you could have heard a pin drop, and I trust my candidacy was doomed from that point onwards.


Yeah, I have explained to small business owners looking to hire people that when asking 'open ended questions, to be ready for answers that you might not agree on. Or are so completely off in la-la land to make you wonder if your in the wrong dimension and not them. The ones that didn't believe me would call up days later to say it was true.

But diversity is not about shielding or hiding intolerance in its mist. Different political and/or religious views can create an unbalanced workplace. Particularly if someone is intolerant of a political and/or religious view/party/faith. I could take what you stated to mean 'my political/religious views are cast iron and should be protected....EVEN IF....someone might get offended to them.' Open ended questions do shed light on how a person thinks and views things.

The problem comes about when only one side...which seems the left wants to be...decides what is intolerant. Diversity is not a mix of races and cultures and faiths and genders espousing the same thing. Diversity is a mix of races, cultures, faiths and genders with differing viewpoints. Tolerance means I respect your views and do not try to harm you because of them or try to legislate you into my view.


No, tolerance is not limited to 'you respect me and try not to hurt me'. Tolerance is about realizing what the differences are, and NOT reacting to those differences. For instance, do you behave towards someone differently that has long hair and short hair? Blue eyes verse green eyes? No, most people do not. Do you behave differently towards a Boy Scout verse a Girl Scout? Towards a Muslim or Christian when neither is showing their faith? Or if they are?

The reason why laws were created was to remove bad behaviors from people. In 1996 for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act was past. This forced new building codes (particularly among civil and religious) to make doorways wider and provide access to different floors easier. It made it a crime to discriminate based on physical, mental, and/or emotional disabilities.

When you look at President Obama, what do you see? I see a guy in a suit whom is in the White House. Yes, he is black. But his being black doesn't register to me as a 'deciding fact' to whether he can do the job or not. Or that he's intelligent or not. Or educated or not. Those on the right see the President as inferior, BECAUSE he's black. Hence, they are not tolerant.

I can hold a conversation with a muslim, taoist, christian, and atheist at once on a variety of topics. That their faith isn't reason enough to me to being a 'game stopper' in the conversation. Yes, each will give a religious viewpoint at some point. So what?

Your trying to rewrite tolerance, and I'm not going to let you get away with it. Being tolerant, does not mean, one is tolerant of intolerance. If someone is being intolerant, tolerant people do not have to 'let it go' or 'turn the other cheek'.



joether -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 12:26:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
What about that quote makes it wrong, joether? That is what many, if not most, campuses proudly proclaim that they have a commitment to racial tolerance, cultural diversity and social justice...". Sounds o.k., doesn't it? Until they add this (parenthesis mine): "(this commitment)will require every member of this community to ensure that the principles of these ideals be mirrored in their attitudes and behaviors.” (Emphasis added.) (Schippensburg University). It was the second part that got the University sued successfully in 2003.


Not sure what your asking me to comment on exactly.....

College Campuses have to follow local, state, and federal laws. Unless you have been on one of these campuses as a full time student, its hard to grasp the underlying thought your trying to attack as being 'something else than what its reported'. I've met commuters and part time students that sometimes do not 'get the attitude' of what happens on a campus. I personally feel, one learns this 'tolerance' (for lack of a better word here) in the dorm rooms. Dealing with others as adults rather than as teenagers (even though most of them are as freshmen).

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Hate to tell you this, joether, but in this forum, most of the topics...and many of the 'citation posts'... are "gotcha" moments meant to illustrate a point of demonstration of the the opposing sides thoughts


Yes, but this forum is....NOT....a college campus.

Your opposing all US Campuses like they are made from the same cookie cutter format. That colleges become more liberal in attitude has more to do as a by-product of education that the mere wood and stone of the walls. In the old days, many rich people would send their sons off to liberal campuses to get a more worldly view on things. Most colleges were within cities, so it provided additional knowledge to learn and observe.

There are plenty of conservatives at colleges and universities across the nation. That having a freedom to express things is a very liberalis notion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Your nice little site? It uses this as their logo:

Their information is vetted by who? Other nice little sites like that? Very neutral, joether.


Let me quote again, since it seems you missed it the first time:

"Here is a nice little site. You can agree or disagree with what the authors state. Yet, the information they are basing their view on usually seems pretty vetted."

The questions your asking implies you did not take a serious look at the site and its information. How do I know that? Because if you had taken a random article and examined it, you would have notice a few words or even lines like this one that are links to the webpage the other is taking information from. The sites they take the information from range the gambit from 'liberal' to 'conservative reporting.

When I state 'vetted', it means they took the information from a source that I can find in several other places (conservative, moderate, and liberal). So the information presented is not like FOX 'news' that places a conservative slant onto 'information' they modified BEFORE placing the conservative slant in place.

Its really sad that such sites as this one and Media Matters has to form to combat the conservatives lies and misinformation machines. That apparently conservatives are just to dimwitted for reasons unknown to realize they are made fools of. Then they come onto forums like this one, and regurgitate what they found without any real thought. After which they are soundly smacked down with the right information.

Most college professors like to hear students regurgitate their work and thoughts in a class. Partially for their egos and partially to see if they are paying attention. But many of them do like the ones that form their own view and can defend it upon examination. Those tend to be the favorites. There was one pool hall local to the campus I was at. The professors would typically shoot pool against the students. Over beer, food, and pool, we would talk politics, economics, and everything else. If I were to pick a metaphor to best explain this; it would be of military buddies chatting about a war they survived together. They understand 'how things were over there' better those those they are around now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
As for my preponderance of examples from the left or holding the right equally as accountable...tell you what, joether: You name one thread in P AND R in which you bring up bad antics of the left and/or hold the left equally accountable and then have someone else note that you did just that. But until you do that, do you really think whether or not you're fine with me...or anybody from the right...bringing these things up matters? In other words, try holding yourself to your own standards before you hold me to them. If what I've asked you to do above is too hard, try something simpler: I took Rand Paul to task for his views...either on this thread or another one...and he is on the right. How about you show me where you've done that with someone on the left?


Just one? Well shit, that will not be tough....

There are times I have disagreed with Tweak, Lucy, Roger, M'Tail, mike, and others. Once someone was beating upon BamaD about some issue in firearms, and I told that person to lay the fuck off! That BamaD's viewpoints on the subject being discussed were true (even gave links).

Go ahead, ask them. I've disagreed with them on things I thought was not accurate or being reported correctly. I called them out when they said 'I found this study....', with 'Where does the study come from? Whom are the author(s) of the study? Got a link for the study? I'll even look up the information and provide the study.

Likewise, I've disagreed with Sen. Warren, my Senator, on matters of economics. I've disagreed on President Obama on matters of foreign policy, economics, and other areas. I have even disagreed with many liberals that we should just ban firearms outright in the nation (cus that'll go over like a lead balloon....).

I wouldn't be attacking conservatives and libertarians on this forum and at large to hold the people they support and vote into public office to a high level of accountability and responsibility with power; unless I was already doing it myself! To cite specific examples? That would take me some time to search through.

The human brain doesn't remember things like an electronic one. You have to remember things in context to something else. So I have to remember the context in which I was disagreeing with them, to narrow down the search field. The one cited example with BamaD? Do you have....any idea.....how many posts I've discussed with him on the subject of firearms? Hundreds! Let me go find that needle; I heard there might be a haystack nearby....



PeonForHer -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 12:29:47 PM)

quote:

The outcry at the time, based on eligibility for military service, was "Old enough to die, old enough to vote!" which is rather obviously a non sequitur.


It follows the logic of 'rights and responsibilities'. There's a general presumption you don't have one without the other. Thus, for instance, if it's my responsibility to go to war under the compulsion of my government, I should have the right to vote and thereby influence the nature of my government.



joether -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 12:32:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
>You do forget many undergraduates are either still in their late teens or early twenties. They are going to make mistakes on wisdom calls all the time...

I found this observation interesting, and of course correct. The human brain is not fully mature until the early-mid 20s, and the areas that mediate judgment and risk-assessment are the last to reach full development. Needless to say, that explains a lot of teenage behavior. But it also raises the question of why the U.S. ever let itself be sold on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The outcry at the time, based on eligibility for military service, was "Old enough to die, old enough to vote!" which is rather obviously a non sequitur. Is it something in the water?


According to the neuro-science in medicine, the human brain does not reach full maturity until age 31-33 for males and 30-32 for females. Very fascinating stuff being found in that field of medicine.



Kirata -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 1:33:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

According to the neuro-science in medicine, the human brain does not reach full maturity until age 31-33 for males and 30-32 for females. Very fascinating stuff being found in that field of medicine.

Well I think we're pretty much in agreement here. It probably turns on how one defines "mature". By age 25, the pre-frontal cortex is sufficiently "wired-in" to allow for judgment to begin to trump impulsivity and adult responsibility to manifest. But yes, it's also very true that the brain's internal connections continue to grow well into our thirties. Suffice it to say that 18-year olds don't qualify under either definition.

[image]http://media.npr.org/news/graphics/2010/02/teen-white-matter_300.gif[/image]
K.






Aylee -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 1:39:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


>You do forget many undergraduates are either still in their late teens or early twenties. They are going to make mistakes on wisdom calls all the time...

I found this observation interesting, and of course correct. The human brain is not fully mature until the early-mid 20s, and the areas that mediate judgment and risk-assessment are the last to reach full development. Needless to say, that explains a lot of teenage behavior. But it also raises the question of why the U.S. ever let itself be sold on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. The outcry at the time, based on eligibility for military service, was "Old enough to die, old enough to vote!" which is rather obviously a non sequitur. Is it something in the water?

K.






Then WHY are they being allowed to take out six-figure loans, if they are not able to make "wisdom calls"? That seems rather unethical.



Kirata -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 2:03:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Then WHY are they being allowed to take out six-figure loans, if they are not able to make "wisdom calls"? That seems rather unethical.

They're also allowed to buy beer in some states, so they can get an early start on a rewarding career of assholery and drinking.

K.




mnottertail -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 2:04:29 PM)

And getting shot up for WMD in Iraq. And banks make a lot of money over it. For both.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Progressive Education (3/11/2015 3:12:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
exactly so...

I had a phone interview once for a teaching position at a university and one of the interviewers asked me a question about diversity. I said something about diversity is not just a collection of people of different skin colors, sexual orientations and genders so long as they all more or less are in the same social/political camp...that true diversity was a matter of differing political and religious thought regardless of the aforementioned attributes.

you could have heard a pin drop, and I trust my candidacy was doomed from that point onwards.


Yeah, I have explained to small business owners looking to hire people that when asking 'open ended questions, to be ready for answers that you might not agree on. Or are so completely off in la-la land to make you wonder if your in the wrong dimension and not them. The ones that didn't believe me would call up days later to say it was true.

But diversity is not about shielding or hiding intolerance in its mist. Different political and/or religious views can create an unbalanced workplace. Particularly if someone is intolerant of a political and/or religious view/party/faith. I could take what you stated to mean 'my political/religious views are cast iron and should be protected....EVEN IF....someone might get offended to them.' Open ended questions do shed light on how a person thinks and views things.

The problem comes about when only one side...which seems the left wants to be...decides what is intolerant. Diversity is not a mix of races and cultures and faiths and genders espousing the same thing. Diversity is a mix of races, cultures, faiths and genders with differing viewpoints. Tolerance means I respect your views and do not try to harm you because of them or try to legislate you into my view.


No, tolerance is not limited to 'you respect me and try not to hurt me'. Tolerance is about realizing what the differences are, and NOT reacting to those differences. For instance, do you behave towards someone differently that has long hair and short hair? Blue eyes verse green eyes? No, most people do not. Do you behave differently towards a Boy Scout verse a Girl Scout? Towards a Muslim or Christian when neither is showing their faith? Or if they are?

The reason why laws were created was to remove bad behaviors from people. In 1996 for example, the Americans with Disabilities Act was past. This forced new building codes (particularly among civil and religious) to make doorways wider and provide access to different floors easier. It made it a crime to discriminate based on physical, mental, and/or emotional disabilities.

When you look at President Obama, what do you see? I see a guy in a suit whom is in the White House. Yes, he is black. But his being black doesn't register to me as a 'deciding fact' to whether he can do the job or not. Or that he's intelligent or not. Or educated or not. Those on the right see the President as inferior, BECAUSE he's black. Hence, they are not tolerant.

I can hold a conversation with a muslim, taoist, christian, and atheist at once on a variety of topics. That their faith isn't reason enough to me to being a 'game stopper' in the conversation. Yes, each will give a religious viewpoint at some point. So what?

Your trying to rewrite tolerance, and I'm not going to let you get away with it. Being tolerant, does not mean, one is tolerant of intolerance. If someone is being intolerant, tolerant people do not have to 'let it go' or 'turn the other cheek'.
Actually joether, if you'd bothered to look up tolerance, you'd see I did NOT rewrite it. I wrote: Intolerance is already defined: lack of tolerance; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own. That came from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance

Here's another one: : not willing to allow or accept something
: not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights
medicine : unable to take a certain substance into the body without becoming sick
Full Definition
1 :unable or unwilling to endure
2 a :unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b :unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights :bigoted
the above can be found here:
http://i.word.com/idictionary/intolerant

Now then, joether...as you can see, I did not attempt to rewrite anything. I gave the dictionary definition And, with this post, follow it up with another dictionary definition.

You are the one trying to rewrite what tolerance is. As I've said, I can agree that legislation against discriminatory actions that threaten someone's life or intimidates them in such a manner that they crime fearful, hold them back from equal...but not better...access to jobs or housing or education or social institutions such as dating/marriage, etc. is following through on proven past wrongs. But legislation to stop hurt feelings by suppression of another's thoughts or words? No. Can't go along with that. And neither can the Supreme Court. Thats why the Klan is allowed to March, despite their hateful views and expression of those views.

But many campuses would like to quash expression of contrary opinions. Hence, the successful suit against Schippensburg University. Hence, the attempt to keep a Jewish Student off the Judicial Council at another university. Hence, the attempt to make even asking for a date from someone not interested in you (how do you know they're not interested if you don't ask) a form of sexual harassment. Hence, the attempts at many campuses to disrupt or quash appearances by speakers that some students and/or teachers disagree with even though that speaker may have been invited by OTHER students/teachers that do agree with the speaker. You want to show how tolerant you are? Then stay away from the speech and allow others of differingy views to enjoy their rights.

One last thing: Intolerance is reflective of narrow-mindedness...how intolerant are those ever-so-tolerant liberal students being when they expect a conservative student to sit and listen to a liberal professor without question but do not want conservative professors on campus? The following was written in 2003. Would you like to show me proof that any of it has changed since then?
..."Tulane Law School – one of the institutions I visited this spring -- has not a single Republican or conservative faculty member; the Duquesne Law School – where I also spoke -- has one. The students I met at the University of Michigan could not identify a single conservative on their faculty, although they could name several Marxists. At Bowling Green, conservative professors were isolated in a research center that has no teaching responsibilities..."
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=18634



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625