If You Can Stand The Sight of Blood....

[PoliticalChic]

What did the professors debate?

It must be pretty lame as no one has quoted it is my point.

Where's the apology, Dunce?

 

[PoliticalChic]

She's toying with you, 'guy.

I know. I'm just humoring her.

Now, now, Oldy....

You and I both know you were attempting to make a point, but a diaphanous one....

You pretended that you didn't see the political point, but you did.
This is clear in your later post.


In reality, you were trying to deflect the critique of Liberalism.
This is not possible, I assure you.


The philosophy of moral relativism, of each of us rationalizing our wants and desires, and proclaiming them to be the correct behavior for both the individual, and for society,e.g., abortion, criminal behavior, addiction to welfare, etc., is indefensible.

It may feel good....but it is not good.



The offer still stands....and you'd be proud of yourself.
And ....snacks.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, is there supposed to be a problem with this exchange? Two persons in a highly intellectual academic atmosphere exchange their views with force. Most, I think, find the Professor more convincing.

That's 'conservative'?

OK, 'Chic, we luv ya so it must be true.

1. Let's explore that, shall we?

One individual, evincing the Liberal perspective, is explaining that any behavior should be acceptable.

The other, championing the traditional, or conservative perspective, criticizes same, and explains that one should adhere to protocols that respect other people.


2. I made reference to a point from Charles Murray's book, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010."

Let me add to that:
One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.

a. “For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html

b. “One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, …” Ibid.

c. The elites must preach what they practice.
He is stating that folks should behave as Galloway did, when others behave as the student did.




3. Murray's point is profound. Ignoring same will lead to the destruction of society. The student in the OP is heading toward his own destruction.
Charles Murray champions the conservative perspective, as does Galloway.

I suspect you know that.
Look in the mirror and explore why you would deny same.




4. On the other hand, you might try to argue that the Liberal view is based on individual responsibility, hard work, thrift, providence, honesty, and deferred gratification.

Please, don't let me stop you.

Well, I'm convinced! I knew there was a part 'conservative' somewhere. Funny how easily it coexists with all the other parts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, is there supposed to be a problem with this exchange? Two persons in a highly intellectual academic atmosphere exchange their views with force. Most, I think, find the Professor more convincing.

That's 'conservative'?

OK, 'Chic, we luv ya so it must be true.

1. Let's explore that, shall we?

One individual, evincing the Liberal perspective, is explaining that any behavior should be acceptable.

The other, championing the traditional, or conservative perspective, criticizes same, and explains that one should adhere to protocols that respect other people.


2. I made reference to a point from Charles Murray's book, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010."

Let me add to that:
One change in societal attitude has been the “ecumenical niceness”…don’t fight, share toys, take turns….and never, ever be judgmental. As a result, the upper cultural class, which has stabilized by returning to more traditional ways, survives, yet these individuals will not criticize the behaviors which are destroying the lower cultural class.

a. “For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html

b. “One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide, …” Ibid.

c. The elites must preach what they practice.
He is stating that folks should behave as Galloway did, when others behave as the student did.




3. Murray's point is profound. Ignoring same will lead to the destruction of society. The student in the OP is heading toward his own destruction.
Charles Murray champions the conservative perspective, as does Galloway.

I suspect you know that.
Look in the mirror and explore why you would deny same.




4. On the other hand, you might try to argue that the Liberal view is based on individual responsibility, hard work, thrift, providence, honesty, and deferred gratification.

Please, don't let me stop you.

Well, I'm convinced! I knew there was a part 'conservative' somewhere. Funny how easily it coexists with all the other parts.

Too much breedin,’ not enough readin.’

I look forward to that day....no matter how distant in the future it may be, when you gather the strength to actually support your perspective.


Bet you can’t wait to procrastinate.

 

[Oldguy]

She's toying with you, 'guy.

I know. I'm just humoring her.

Now, now, Oldy....

You and I both know you were attempting to make a point, but a diaphanous one....

You pretended that you didn't see the political point, but you did.
This is clear in your later post.


In reality, you were trying to deflect the critique of Liberalism.
This is not possible, I assure you.


The philosophy of moral relativism, of each of us rationalizing our wants and desires, and proclaiming them to be the correct behavior for both the individual, and for society,e.g., abortion, criminal behavior, addiction to welfare, etc., is indefensible.

It may feel good....but it is not good.



The offer still stands....and you'd be proud of yourself.
And ....snacks.

Do you mean like the right's moral relativism and rationalizations which led to us torturing prisoners? Or, invading other countries to bring them the benefit of getting to be just like us? Or, bailing out banks while Main St. suffered? Or, proposing to cut benefits for the poor while reducing the taxes on the wealthy? Or, pretending that when Jesus said to take care of the poor, He really meant for us to do it individually instead of collectively (the Old Testament not withstanding)? Or, to sit in judgment of those less fortunate or not like us and pretend they're not worthy of our support or the same Constitutional protections we enjoy (see: illegals and homosexuals)? Or....well....you get my drift.

 

[Politico]

Everything is political.

Lost me right there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Everything is political.

Lost me right there.

No surprise.

I post for adults.

 

[there4eyeM]

Gee, one finds it difficult even to agree with her! One could be put off, but I'm not an off putter myself so don't look for it in others. Guess I'll wait awhile.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know. I'm just humoring her.

Now, now, Oldy....

You and I both know you were attempting to make a point, but a diaphanous one....

You pretended that you didn't see the political point, but you did.
This is clear in your later post.


In reality, you were trying to deflect the critique of Liberalism.
This is not possible, I assure you.


The philosophy of moral relativism, of each of us rationalizing our wants and desires, and proclaiming them to be the correct behavior for both the individual, and for society,e.g., abortion, criminal behavior, addiction to welfare, etc., is indefensible.

It may feel good....but it is not good.



The offer still stands....and you'd be proud of yourself.
And ....snacks.

Do you mean like the right's moral relativism and rationalizations which led to us torturing prisoners? Or, invading other countries to bring them the benefit of getting to be just like us? Or, bailing out banks while Main St. suffered? Or, proposing to cut benefits for the poor while reducing the taxes on the wealthy? Or, pretending that when Jesus said to take care of the poor, He really meant for us to do it individually instead of collectively (the Old Testament not withstanding)? Or, to sit in judgment of those less fortunate or not like us and pretend they're not worthy of our support or the same Constitutional protections we enjoy (see: illegals and homosexuals)? Or....well....you get my drift.

1. "...led to us torturing prisoners?"
There never was any torture.


2. " Or, invading other countries to bring them the benefit of getting to be just like us?"
Could you give an example of same that was not supported by Democrats?

The rest of your post is an attempt at obfuscation......

...which, in fact, supports my contention that you fully recognized the political nature of the OP.

3. It takes a stronger individual than you are to admit you are incorrect.

 

[there4eyeM]

1. "...led to us torturing prisoners?"
There never was any torture.

What do you call it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "...led to us torturing prisoners?"
There never was any torture.

What do you call it?

Enhanced Interrogation.

Not one of the ten methods listed by the NYTimes and the hand-wringers as 'torture' isn't represented by voluntary behavior in civilian life.

Such as the following:

Waterboarding (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)
"Finally, you would like to use a technique called the 'waterboard.’ “..air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds."

Here is the 'torture', waterboarding, or as we called it, Chug-a-Lug: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RUbkI0ve_c]koolaid chugalug - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Politico]

Everything is political.

Lost me right there.

No surprise.

I post for adults.

Obviously not. You copy and paste. And I should have said intelligent adults. They don't think everything is political.

 

[Oldguy]

1. "...led to us torturing prisoners?"
There never was any torture.

What do you call it?

Enhanced Interrogation.

Not one of the ten methods listed by the NYTimes and the hand-wringers as 'torture' isn't represented by voluntary behavior in civilian life.

Such as the following:

Waterboarding (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)
"Finally, you would like to use a technique called the 'waterboard.’ “..air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds."

Here is the 'torture', waterboarding, or as we called it, Chug-a-Lug: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RUbkI0ve_c]koolaid chugalug - YouTube[/ame]

Rationalization at its finest!

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "...led to us torturing prisoners?"
There never was any torture.

What do you call it?

Enhanced Interrogation.

Not one of the ten methods listed by the NYTimes and the hand-wringers as 'torture' isn't represented by voluntary behavior in civilian life.

Such as the following:

Waterboarding (Bybee memo, August 1, 2002)
"Finally, you would like to use a technique called the 'waterboard.’ “..air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds."

Here is the 'torture', waterboarding, or as we called it, Chug-a-Lug: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RUbkI0ve_c]koolaid chugalug - YouTube[/ame]

Rationalization at its finest!

Revelation at its most fundamental.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lost me right there.

No surprise.

I post for adults.

Obviously not. You copy and paste. And I should have said intelligent adults. They don't think everything is political.

Well, let's just see how simple it is to show that you are simple.

"Why Everything Is Politicized Even Though Most Americans Hate It
Perverse incentives reward people who treat politics as war and discourage everyone else from opposing them."
Why Everything Is Politicized Even Though Most Americans Hate It - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic


It is, in fact, the very basis for all Leftist strategies.

It infects science, relationships, and the arts.


In not being congnizant of this fact, intellectually, you are a child.

That is exactly what I said in my first post to you.

And now...Q.E.D.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love how some people just decided to hijack this thread rather than commenting on the material. Chic, that was a very entertaining OP.

I feel for the professor, since the student had little to no will to research his said policy on tardiness. His fault, not the professor's. The student then decides he would offer his own feedback on the fact that he showed little to no regard for the class he came in an hour late to, which in and of itself would have been disrespectful on its face. The student should pick a path and stay on it, not walk halfway down all of them and see which one suits him the best; nobody gets anywhere doing that. You don't choose life, life chooses you. The student plays on the liberal idea of narcissism, that the whole world revolves around his schedule, ideas, whims, notions, etc. In all actuality liberals need to get their 'shit' together, too. Because of their work, they are re-delineating the standards of what is known as base decorum in our colleges and other places of higher education.

In my day, if I was late for class, I would be sent to detention, or given a tardy slip. If I kept doing it, I would see the Principal. Serves this student right. Self restraint is indeed the most conservative means of action, so is better judgement.