|
Post by ironbite on Mar 18, 2009 10:55:43 GMT -5
Well considering he still believes, after being repeatably schooled on the subject matter to boot, that the stock market and the economy are linked and that ever time Obama or one of his cronies speak it goes down like a drunk mormon girl on homecoming night.....
Ironbite-you do the math.
|
|
|
Post by captainhooker on Mar 18, 2009 11:47:14 GMT -5
It can be a bit of a vicious circle, tho, as there are some people in academia and other places that regard anyone who isn't as "elite" as they are to be unwashed and ignorant. What's really needed is for both sides to get over themselves. Those who consider themselves "elite" are actually quite rare amongst acedemia. Can you name one? I can name several, but I won't because I work with them. There are elitist assholes in every profession and academia is no exception. Many many many of the subjects in our profession, while drawing from a common body of knowledge, often separate into competing ideological factions - for example in my field of work, English, there are Feminists, Structuralists, Deconstructionists, Rhetoricians, New Criticalists, and so on, and many will defend their point of view to the death - and YES, believe it or not, will castigate students who dare to question them. The same goes for economics, history, government, and just about any other subject that involves a personal ideological perspective. I've experienced it as a student, and I've witnessed it as a professor. Acedemia are just teachers, when you boil it all down. Yes, they do research, publish to support their ideas and so on, but, in the end, are teachers. I thought teaching was a noble profession. I guess it depends on what you teach, then. You're oversimplifying. Being an Academic is not the same as being a teacher. The job title might be shared, but there are lots of Ph.D's out there who regard their teaching as a necessary, but nagging hurdle they jump in order to do their research - especially those for whom publication is required part of their contract. It's no secret that many of those professors "phone it in" when it comes to their classroom duties, just so they can get back to their pet research projects. So no, being a successful academic or more specifically a "researcher", does NOT mean that that person is a good teacher. That involves a completely different set of skills and body of knowledge, namely pedagogical skills. The extent of common sense rational thought you guys will ignore just to have a chance to jump on SkyFire is staggering. He said "some", not "all" or "every" - but "some." It's vague, but it's absolutely true.
|
|
adoylelb90815
Full Member
I'm the feminist intellectual fundies warned you about
Posts: 120
|
Post by adoylelb90815 on Mar 18, 2009 11:53:36 GMT -5
His church doesn't like "intellectuals" because they think critically for themselves, and don't blindly accept what leaders say. "Intellectuals" are also known for reading books and other material that isn't approved by the church, especially if they're about polygamy which is something that's a thorn in that church's side, or DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon's claim about the origin of Native Americans.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 18, 2009 12:59:24 GMT -5
What Cap'n Hooker said.
I work with a bunch of elitist assholes. I just came from a conference full of them. We have professors who fly in to give lectures and demand a limo service from the airport to the lecture room (over an hour's drive). Just happened to us three weeks ago. In this kind of economy, no less! The majority of academics view teaching as secondary to their research. In fact, when most profs get their award letter when they get a job, it usually breaks down the percentage of their time they are supposed to participate in teaching. For most profs, it's somewhere between 40-50%. The rest of the time is to be spent in service (committee work, etc.) or research. Some profs have teaching requirements that only make up 10-20% of their load--so, why place much importance on it when the university is going to judge you on your research at 80%? There is a lot of snobbery in academia--everything from what you eat to what you are reading to what conference you're going to to where your office is. Academia is very judgmental.
Now, as to the OP, there was an interesting article written by Robin Wilson I think for the Chronicle of Higher Ed talking about a survey done regarding attitudes about academia and various demographic factors. I don't remember the title of it, but you can search for it on Google via those parameters. He found that the further away you were from an actual university, whether through age or because you don't have kids going, etc., the more likely you were to think that those professors were up to something they shouldn't be. Actual people in college or having graduated fairly recently did not report similar attitudes. So, it's mainly a case of being suspicious of something you don't know much about. There is also a really entertaining book about it called What's "Liberal" About the Liberal Arts?: Classroom Politics and 'Bias' in Higher Education by Michael Berube that explains a lot about the perception vs. the reality as well.
My own personal experience with people who express those comments is that those kinds of people usually feel deeply inadequate about their own level of education and they're afraid they're being looked down on--or that they would be looked down on. They tend to be very defensive about the education they do have and deeply suspicious of people who are more educated (but not necessarily smarter) than they are. Or the other "type" is a small minority of people who experienced a very biased prof in class and had a terrible experience with it. That tends to color how they look at all profs.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 18, 2009 16:12:59 GMT -5
His church doesn't like "intellectuals" because they think critically for themselves, and don't blindly accept what leaders say. "Intellectuals" are also known for reading books and other material that isn't approved by the church, especially if they're about polygamy which is something that's a thorn in that church's side, or DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon's claim about the origin of Native Americans. To the contrary: Most of the top leadership, past and present, have high-level degrees. The tendency is toward business and medicine, but there are also historians and scientists in the mix as well. So - do I get to make fun of you now?
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 18, 2009 16:23:12 GMT -5
His church doesn't like "intellectuals" because they think critically for themselves, and don't blindly accept what leaders say. "Intellectuals" are also known for reading books and other material that isn't approved by the church, especially if they're about polygamy which is something that's a thorn in that church's side, or DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon's claim about the origin of Native Americans. To the contrary: Most of the top leadership, past and present, have high-level degrees. The tendency is toward business and medicine, but there are also historians and scientists in the mix as well. So - do I get to make fun of you now? Yes, Skyfire, it took a real charlatan intellectual like Joseph Smith to trick convince an entire group of morons people that he discovered God's "Golden Plates" just two years after he was convicted of fraud in New York ;D And it takes a total tool truly intelligent person to believe the Garden of Eden will appear in Missouri and that magic longjohns can shield you from harm.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 18, 2009 16:29:57 GMT -5
To the contrary: Most of the top leadership, past and present, have high-level degrees. The tendency is toward business and medicine, but there are also historians and scientists in the mix as well. So - do I get to make fun of you now? Yes, Skyfire, it takes a real charlatan intellectual like Joseph Smith who could trick convince an entire group of morons people that he discovered God's "Golden Plates" just two years after he was convicted of fraud in New York ;D Actually, the given evidence states otherwise. The bulk of the argument that Joseph was convicted rests on a single document stolen by Rev. Wesley Walters. The document in question, what appears to be a bill, was represented by Walters to be a fine, which he regarded as proof of a conviction. However, Walters never showed the document itself to anyone else (something you guys would be ripping him apart for if the situation was reversed) and had to receive a court order w/ threat of punishment to hand it back. Whether you want to read it or not, a little over 5 years ago an analysis was done of the document in question. Given a number of irregularities in regards to New York state law at the time, the conclusion is that the document is nothing more than legal fees for a pre-trial hearing. Thus, instead of any actual proof of a conviction, it merely shows that a trial happened - something many members of the church already know about. Further attempts to claim an actual conviction rest on sometimes-contradictory accounts, something discussed in this article here and from another perspective in this article here.So in conclusion: [1] The argument of a conviction is bupkis. [2] It's you guys, not me, who are derailing the thread again.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 18, 2009 16:32:58 GMT -5
Yes, Skyfire, it takes a real charlatan intellectual like Joseph Smith who could trick convince an entire group of morons people that he discovered God's "Golden Plates" just two years after he was convicted of fraud in New York ;D Actually, the given evidence states otherwise. The bulk of the argument that Joseph was convicted rests on a single document stolen by Rev. Wesley Walters. The document in question, what appears to be a bill, was represented by Walters to be a fine, which he regarded as proof of a conviction. However, Walters never showed the document itself to anyone else (something you guys would be ripping him apart for if the situation was reversed) and had to receive a court order w/ threat of punishment to hand it back. Whether you want to read it or not, a little over 5 years ago an analysis was done of the document in question. Given a number of irregularities in regards to New York state law at the time, the conclusion is that the document is nothing more than legal fees for a pre-trial hearing. Thus, instead of any actual proof of a conviction, it merely shows that a trial happened - something many members of the church already know about. Further attempts to claim an actual conviction rest on sometimes-contradictory accounts, something discussed in this article here and from another perspective in this article here.So in conclusion: [1] The argument of a conviction is bupkis. [2] It's you guys, not me, who are derailing the thread again. Gee, how can I argue with fairlds.org? Isn't that like using AnswersinGenesis in a debate about evolution?...
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 18, 2009 16:34:33 GMT -5
I've asked the administration staff to review this thread on the basis of both the flaming and the deliberate efforts to derail the thread by discussing an entirely unrelated topic.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 18, 2009 16:40:08 GMT -5
His church doesn't like "intellectuals" because they think critically for themselves, and don't blindly accept what leaders say. "Intellectuals" are also known for reading books and other material that isn't approved by the church, especially if they're about polygamy which is something that's a thorn in that church's side, or DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon's claim about the origin of Native Americans. You're joking right? The University of Calgary is run by Mormons. Most Mormons I know are very well educated and in successful careers. In fact I'd say a lot of the "elite snobs" that I've met are Mormon. They're trained in public speaking from the age of 8. As far as things that go against the book of Mormon, they either edit it, or explain it with the standard "godidit". Elite is just the latest insult term.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 18, 2009 16:50:08 GMT -5
There's a file photo of the court docket for JS's trial and conviction. They may have burnt the courthouse down but they forgot to burn the bailif's house. Anyway, does BYU actually qualify as a place of learnng ? here's a link about js's criminal history www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon430.htm
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 18, 2009 17:01:06 GMT -5
Furthermore, I don't think the topic has been derailed in the first place. The most anti-intellectual people in the world are sleazy purveyors of dogma, whether it's Pope Been-a-Dick or Thomas S. Monson, the head of the Mormon cult (which is just a hair behind Scientology in how utterly batshit insane it is). This is why Sarah Palin calls intelligent people "elitist", it's because intelligent people don't fall obvious bullshit (like that condoms fail every time, or that abortion is a slippery slope toward murder, or that the Garden of Eden will be in Missouri or that Mohammad ascended to Heaven on a flying horse).
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 18, 2009 17:01:37 GMT -5
There's a file photo of the court docket for JS's trial and conviction. They may have burnt the courthouse down but they forgot to burn the bailif's house. Anyway, does BYU actually qualify as a place of learnng ? here's a link about js's criminal history www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon430.htmOh, and Death, thanks for the link
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 18, 2009 18:27:32 GMT -5
There's a file photo of the court docket for JS's trial and conviction. They may have burnt the courthouse down but they forgot to burn the bailif's house. Anyway, does BYU actually qualify as a place of learnng ? It's rated as #113 in the world. Again, I'm not sure where this "Mormons are anti-intellectual is coming from. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_UniversityI'm not a Mormon, I think the LDS church is as wacky as any fundie church, but I have to give respect where respect is due. Believe it or not, they have one of the top paleontology departments. www.ethicalpalaeontologist.com/2007/05/retraction.htm
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 18, 2009 18:32:25 GMT -5
There's a file photo of the court docket for JS's trial and conviction. They may have burnt the courthouse down but they forgot to burn the bailif's house. Anyway, does BYU actually qualify as a place of learnng ? It's rated as #113 in the world. Again, I'm not sure where this "Mormons are anti-intellectual is coming from. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_UniversityI'm not a Mormon, I think the LDS church is as wacky as any fundie church, but I have to give respect where respect is due. Believe it or not, they have one of the top paleontology departments. www.ethicalpalaeontologist.com/2007/05/retraction.htmBusinessWeek has also recommended BYU's MBA program twice in the past six months, once because it's so cheap compared to other MBA programs they looked at (it can cost 10% as much as an MBA at a comparably-sized university) and again because of the overall quality. edit - The few actual problems with the college all stem from the theology department and its periodic power grabs (plus a few other acts of stupidity). However, departmental power grabs aren't new to academia and so even non-Mormon colleges face them (for example, the English department at Central Texas College tried a power grab a few years ago that resulted in all departments, even PE, having to have a written requirement).
|
|