|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 18, 2009 18:49:11 GMT -5
It has been my experience (it's anecdotal, so it must be true!) that Mormons are often well-educated. But Mormons I've known have also consistently been a cut above in practicing what they preach - non-drinking, non-smoking, non-swearing, industrious, unfailingly polite, and so if their beliefs come with bonus crazy that doesn't much surprise me.
Of course academia and fundamentalist Christianity have been in opposition in increasing degree since the fifteenth century (at which point we saw the rise of an academic community that was outside the church) and accelerating in the nineteenth when technology and politics allowed for the emergence of a robust international scientific community. I doubt the modern fundie cares about any of that. More likely is that either A) they aren't educated very well and so believe the horror stories told them by their peers, or B) they went through a college system that has its share of kooks.
I think it's worth remembering that anybody who's ensconced in a specific realm will gradually lose touch with reality and only interpret things in a massively colored way. We see it all the time with fundies. If liberal fundies thrive anywhere, it's in the universities. I've had a number of professors who exhibit the sorts of traits we see in religious fundies - closed-mindedness, illogical proofs, complete misunderstanding of situations - but use it in defense of left-wing principles. I've actually had a couple of professors who were out and out Marxists.
Personally I love academia. People are there, usually, because they're willing to open their minds. The girls are smart. (The guys are also smart, but as I don't date them the point is meaningless.) People are idealistic and won't find out how horrible the world is for a few more years, which provides a brief windows of adulthood untainted by crushing bitterness. Colleges are remarkable places. But they are also strange alternate universes which have a leadership that is shifted left a good ways from the norm. I'm not surprised that someone who's on the far right would have such a low opinion of academia, because it is in some ways a world that is hostile to their ideology.
A broad generalization, but my two cents, anyway.
(Edit: After posting this I got an ad that said "Ann Coulter-free!" and was really hoping it was in the sense that some sodas are caffeine-free. Alas, no.)
|
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 18, 2009 19:01:48 GMT -5
CH & DV, I agree, wholeheartedly, with what you have said. Having agreed with you, does not mean that what Skyfire was alluding to is in any way valid. An ad-hominem attack on those who we call academics does not in any manner whatever, take away from the accomplishments academic research and teaching. Yes, many professors are arrogant and downright boorish asses. They are also often brilliant, in their chosen field of study.
DV, you teach the morons that graduate high school, who often cannot express themselves in the English language beyond a functional grade 9 level of comprehension and grammar. Doesn't that piss you off? Don't you feel rage when you mark some of the papers that are turned in to you for grading? How long have you been teaching?
Imagine, then, having watched the gradual dummification of our society during a thirty or forty year tenure. I would turn into an asshole, too. It still doesn't diminish one's academic acheivements, and doesn't, for sure, Skyfire's ridiculous assertions.
Like it or not, professional academia shapes our future leaders, and is at the forefront of research.
"The Academic Elites" is a different animal, in the mind of Skyfire, and other fundies. These are the guys who ridicule their religions through science and actual research. These are the guys that the far right consider "leftist" or "socialist" or "communist", or "liberal", as the current vernacular for the "bad guys" prescribes. These are the people, men and women, who give failing grades to numbskulls and get bagged for it.
I went through university, and spent most of my lecture time calling my professors on points of historical interpretation (history major), that I thought they were wrong with, or at least were ignoring other factors. I graduated with a 4.0 grade point average in my history classes. You can disagree with professors, provided you are armed with facts and intelligence.
In Skyfire's case, you can bet he was ridiculed by his "elitist" grade school and secondary school teachers for his ridiculous assertions.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 18, 2009 19:22:48 GMT -5
CH & DV, I agree, wholeheartedly, with what you have said. Having agreed with you, does not mean that what Skyfire was alluding to is in any way valid. An ad-hominem attack on those who we call academics does not in any manner whatever, take away from the accomplishments academic research and teaching. Yes, many professors are arrogant and downright boorish asses. They are also often brilliant, in their chosen field of study. DV, you teach the morons that graduate high school, who often cannot express themselves in the English language beyond a functional grade 9 level of comprehension and grammar. Doesn't that piss you off? Don't you feel rage when you mark some of the papers that are turned in to you for grading? How long have you been teaching? Imagine, then, having watched the gradual dummification of our society during a thirty or forty year tenure. I would turn into an asshole, too. It still doesn't diminish one's academic acheivements, and doesn't, for sure, Skyfire's ridiculous assertions. Like it or not, professional academia shapes our future leaders, and is at the forefront of research. "The Academic Elites" is a different animal, in the mind of Skyfire, and other fundies. These are the guys who ridicule their religions through science and actual research. These are the guys that the far right consider "leftist" or "socialist" or "communist", or "liberal", as the current vernacular for the "bad guys" prescribes. These are the people, men and women, who give failing grades to numbskulls and get bagged for it. I went through university, and spent most of my lecture time calling my professors on points of historical interpretation (history major), that I thought they were wrong with, or at least were ignoring other factors. I graduated with a 4.0 grade point average in my history classes. You can disagree with professors, provided you are armed with facts and intelligence. In Skyfire's case, you can bet he was ridiculed by his "elitist" grade school and secondary school teachers for his ridiculous assertions. So rather than address my original point, a point attested to by others, you're going to ridicule me and hope that it makes my argument go away. Kinda pathetic, when you think about it; one'd expect something better from you. |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 18, 2009 19:29:27 GMT -5
Your entire argument is personal, based on your personal experience.
It may be dismissed, out of hand, son, because nearly everything that you spout off about, you are either underinformed or misinformed, or both. Everyone in this forum understands what you are about. Your "original point" was ludicrous from the start, hence, worthy of dismissal by any rational person.
You are angry at your mentor because you lost your tutoring position, which you blame on her, rather than personally assessing your own level of failure. You fancy yourself an intellectual of sorts, but your constant blathering of irrelevancie and inanities belies your failed aspirations. That is why I simply dismissed your "original point". It was pointless and unoriginal, hence nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 18, 2009 19:35:01 GMT -5
Your entire argument is personal, based on your personal experience. It may be dismissed, out of hand, son, because nearly everything that you spout off about, you are either underinformed or misinformed, or both. Everyone in this forum understands what you are about. Your "original point" was ludicrous from the start, hence, worthy of dismissal by any rational person. You are angry at your mentor because you lost your tutoring position, which you blame on her, rather than personally assessing your own level of failure. You fancy yourself an intellectual of sorts, but your constant blathering of irrelevancie and inanities belies your failed aspirations. That is why I simply dismissed your "original point". It was pointless and unoriginal, hence nothing. Again, I'm going back to the fact that you're mocking a point that has been attested to by others simply because you don't like me as a person. |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 18, 2009 19:46:33 GMT -5
Your entire argument is personal, based on your personal experience. It may be dismissed, out of hand, son, because nearly everything that you spout off about, you are either underinformed or misinformed, or both. Everyone in this forum understands what you are about. Your "original point" was ludicrous from the start, hence, worthy of dismissal by any rational person. You are angry at your mentor because you lost your tutoring position, which you blame on her, rather than personally assessing your own level of failure. You fancy yourself an intellectual of sorts, but your constant blathering of irrelevancie and inanities belies your failed aspirations. That is why I simply dismissed your "original point". It was pointless and unoriginal, hence nothing. Again, I'm going back to the fact that you're mocking a point that has been attested to by others simply because you don't like me as a person. This is nothing personal, Skyfire. I referred to your post about "primary or secondary", and to your history of stupidity and misinformed opinions, both of which are well documented in these and in the previous forums. Liking or disliking you is irrelevant. Your original point was pointless and unorginal, based upon your own pomposity and elevated opinion of your own intellect. You're one of those students who believes himself more well versed in the topic being taught then the teacher, and you get slapped down for it, as you should. It colours every fibre of your outlook towards the intelligensia and acedemia, making your interpretation both biased and wrong. That is why I dismissed your "original point", because, as I stated, it was both pointless and unorginal. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 18, 2009 21:28:41 GMT -5
My wife had a Biology professor in school who she complainded acted like the students were stupid and beneath him and if they could not understand what he was teaching there must be something wrong with them. So one day I went to class with her. By this point and time I had already graduated with a degree in bio. The topic of the day was mitosis and meiosis, not very hard concepts, but by the end of the lecture the professor had me confused to the point were I had to go back to our apt and double check my old texts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Mar 18, 2009 23:46:31 GMT -5
Oh for the love of all that is sacred... Attack the ideas, not the person. Show how people are wrong. This is supposed to be intellectual discourse, not "You're a dumbass, so I don't have to prove you wrong." And seriously, there's no bloody need to bring Mormonism in on this. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a fraud, delusional, or the real deal is irrelevant to this discussion. Adoylelb90815 and DevilsChaplin, I'm looking at you. As to arrogant asses, every profession has them. Especially in cases where it takes a lot of time and training to get there. Does anyone deny that there are arrogant doctors? Politicians? Why should teachers be any different, especially the ones that are in advanced fields? Now, start to address his damn points. If you can't show why he's wrong (he's stated that there are arrogant douchebags in the education field) but instead have to snipe at him as a person and his history, take it to Flame and Burn. I'll repost his original post. I think they hate what they fear. They fear Academia because it = intelligence. And intelligence equals free thinking to them and not easily brainwashed by insane dogma. 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. What's wrong with this? Seriously? The presence of pompous asses can lead to additional resentment. There most certainly are pompous asses in every damn career. He never said anything about all people in academia being arrogant. And Julian, buddy? Try to post an actual rebuttal instead of trying to call Skyfire an idiot. This isn't a difficult concept. That goes for you, too, Death and Ironbite. Show where he's wrong. Behave like adults or this thread will be locked. For reference, behaving like adults means "Showing how Skyfire is wrong" not "Skyfire's a failed tutor and has a history of talking out of his ass, so we don't have to prove him wrong!" As a final note, the next post to bring up Mormonism without actually showing how it has any bearing on this subject gets deleted. All of us mods are sick of this bullshit, and it is going to stop. |
|
|
|
Post by renaissanceblonde on Mar 19, 2009 4:26:40 GMT -5
The more education you have, the more uneducated people can feel threatened by you - or even just feel inadequate compared to you. I've got a BA (Hons) under my belt with the marks to do a PhD when I'm done with my Masters of Arts and Media; I've been accused of being condescending, talking about bullshit, and being an educated idiot. I'll admit to the condescending, but I prefer to think of myself as academically sensible and real world confused (Aspergers doesn't help either)! In Australia at the moment, we're suffering a Humanities brain drain as more funding goes into the sciences. I want to be a Humanities academic (Literature and Writing). Many people, including my own Mum, don't quite see the relevance of things like whether whenever a girl went to her room to read in a Jane Austen novel, she was really masturbating (yes, that's a real essay). I do, because I understand humanity that much more. There is the whole 'that thar thinking is dangerous' attitude in Australia, though thankfully it's more to our society being a collection of idiots rather than religious attitudes. Mind you, there's an elitist attitude - I'm guilty of it myself at times. As somebody else said, we need to get over it.  |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 5:11:29 GMT -5
Oh for the love of all that is sacred... Attack the ideas, not the person. Show how people are wrong. This is supposed to be intellectual discourse, not "You're a dumbass, so I don't have to prove you wrong." And seriously, there's no bloody need to bring Mormonism in on this. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a fraud, delusional, or the real deal is irrelevant to this discussion. Adoylelb90815 and DevilsChaplin, I'm looking at you. As to arrogant asses, every profession has them. Especially in cases where it takes a lot of time and training to get there. Does anyone deny that there are arrogant doctors? Politicians? Why should teachers be any different, especially the ones that are in advanced fields? Now, start to address his damn points. If you can't show why he's wrong (he's stated that there are arrogant douchebags in the education field) but instead have to snipe at him as a person and his history, take it to Flame and Burn. I'll repost his original post. 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. What's wrong with this? Seriously? The presence of pompous asses can lead to additional resentment. There most certainly are pompous asses in every damn career. He never said anything about all people in academia being arrogant. And Julian, buddy? Try to post an actual rebuttal instead of trying to call Skyfire an idiot. This isn't a difficult concept. That goes for you, too, Death and Ironbite. Show where he's wrong. Behave like adults or this thread will be locked. For reference, behaving like adults means "Showing how Skyfire is wrong" not "Skyfire's a failed tutor and has a history of talking out of his ass, so we don't have to prove him wrong!" As a final note, the next post to bring up Mormonism without actually showing how it has any bearing on this subject gets deleted. All of us mods are sick of this bullshit, and it is going to stop. Napoleon, not too put to fine a point on it, but my response to Skyfire was appropriate to the "original post" he referred to. In that original post, he referred to his PERSONAL experiences at the hands of primary and secondary school teachers, and made references to being fired from his tutoring job by an elitist, female professor. Skyfire made his statements in this thread PERSONAL, by claiming that he was fired because the professor in question was elitist. I merely pointed out that, given his propensity to believe that he is a superior intellect, and given his long history of this, that his personal experience is coloured by this tendency. His original point was silly, in that he actually believes, from what I have read in his posting history, that he knows more than his teachers. I merely continued with what, to him, was a PERSONAL vendetta against what he considers to be the intellectual elites. Skyfire made his response PERSONAL, so I replied in fashion. His personal outlook is coloured by his biases, his outlook and the fact that his failure as a tutor has a "reason", ie, that an intellectual, elitist female academian fired him from his tutoring position, therefore the academia, in general, are elitist assholes. Again, Skyfire MADE this a personal thing, not me. I merely pointed out the fallacy of that argument. The fact that he latched on to two other posters, whose points were not personally motivated, lends his position no credence. I thought I made that clear, but, I hope this clears the air a bit more. |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 5:59:32 GMT -5
Back to the OP.
The entire concept of the "intellectual elites" is made up. People resent that which they don't understand. Admittedly, there are assholes and pompous jerks amongst the intelligensia, but, often that behaviour is the result of exposure to simplistic morons who make personal attacks on the intellectual in question, rather than on their ideas, or worse, take their ideas out of context and attempt to simplify what are often complex issues.
The term "academic elites" is a misnomer, in the conservative parlance. They are often castigated by said academics for their simplistic world views, and rather than debate honestly, resort to ad-hominem attacks on their personalities and behaviours, rather than on the ideas themselves. To them, the conservative attackers, an elitist is someone who points out the fallacies of their world view, and are, therefore, elitist. It is a false argument.
Higher education does not equate to elitism, in the conservative parlance. Higher education is merely that, more learning. Often, academians specializations seem obscure to those outside the academic milieu, and often misunderstood, and more often, misinterpreted intentionally.
By focusing on the academic elites, the conservative set takes our focus off of the economic elites who really control things. It is the old bait and switch, slight of hand argument that is inherently meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 19, 2009 6:03:27 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? How about you talk about the actual facts... Degrees don't amount to jack shit - something you'll find out in a few years. A ten inch dick is wasted on a gynophobic, misanthropic hermit - it's not what you've got it's how you use it. Fuck the degrees. Fuck the strawmen, the red herrings and the fallacies, and address the facts of that fucking post idiot! For instance. or DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon's claim about the origin of Native AmericansIf you like you can start with the theological disproof, that usually fights science. -- You know, if DNA evidence was correct... Please cite how this is DNA evidence is impossible given the history of America and it's peoples in the mormon doctrines. Point out the timelines from submarine onwards of how things actually worked. Go for it! |
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 19, 2009 6:13:51 GMT -5
Your entire argument is personal, based on your personal experience. It may be dismissed, out of hand, son, because nearly everything that you spout off about, you are either underinformed or misinformed, or both. Everyone in this forum understands what you are about. Your "original point" was ludicrous from the start, hence, worthy of dismissal by any rational person. You are angry at your mentor because you lost your tutoring position, which you blame on her, rather than personally assessing your own level of failure. You fancy yourself an intellectual of sorts, but your constant blathering of irrelevancie and inanities belies your failed aspirations. That is why I simply dismissed your "original point". It was pointless and unoriginal, hence nothing. Again, I'm going back to the fact that you're mocking a point that has been attested to by others simply because you don't like me as a person. Projection much>  Exactly how many idiots are in the world that judge things on some kind of petty emotional quotient instead of assessing something/everything on it's own particular merits. I won't speak for JohnathanE, but I can assure you that I don't dislike you one little bit. I do feel intensely sorry for you and your inability to deal with reality. I also do despise some of your more despicable loathsome hateful intolerant views, and I am flabberghasted by your total lack of accountability, honesty or credibility, and I'm not talking here on these boards, I'm talking about in your own head when you look at yourself every day. How do you live with being such a collosal perpetual failbot? How do you twist every ignominy into something reconcilable? Seriously! Those things are bad, but you - you as a person make me laugh! |
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 19, 2009 6:14:59 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? How about you talk about the actual facts... Degrees don't amount to jack shit - something you'll find out in a few years. A ten inch dick is wasted on a gynophobic, misanthropic hermit - it's not what you've got it's how you use it. Fuck the degrees. Fuck the strawmen, the red herrings and the fallacies, and address the facts of that fucking post idiot! For instance. or DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon's claim about the origin of Native AmericansIf you like you can start with the theological disproof, that usually fights science. -- You know, if DNA evidence was correct... Please cite how this is DNA evidence is impossible given the history of America and it's peoples in the mormon doctrines. Point out the timelines from submarine onwards of how things actually worked. Go for it! You realize, of course, Julian, that this will quite likely result in this thread being locked, and the actual exchange of ideas will be shut down. I understand why you're doing it, however. It's sad, really, that this happens. I want it understood, moderators, that I stayed on topic, did not jump into the fray about Mormonism, and merely pointed out the fallacies in Skyfire's arguments, then attempted to bring the discussion back to the OP. |
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 19, 2009 6:27:50 GMT -5
How about you talk about the actual facts... Degrees don't amount to jack shit - something you'll find out in a few years. A ten inch dick is wasted on a gynophobic, misanthropic hermit - it's not what you've got it's how you use it. Fuck the degrees. Fuck the strawmen, the red herrings and the fallacies, and address the facts of that fucking post idiot! For instance. or DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon's claim about the origin of Native AmericansIf you like you can start with the theological disproof, that usually fights science. -- You know, if DNA evidence was correct... Please cite how this is DNA evidence is impossible given the history of America and it's peoples in the mormon doctrines. Point out the timelines from submarine onwards of how things actually worked. Go for it! You realize, of course, Julian, that this will quite likely result in this thread being locked, and the actual exchange of ideas will be shut down. I understand why you're doing it, however. It's sad, really, that this happens. I want it understood, moderators, that I stayed on topic, did not jump into the fray about Mormonism, and merely pointed out the fallacies in Skyfire's arguments, then attempted to bring the discussion back to the OP. Oh shit, kinda forgot about that... Apologies all... Yep... So moving this to a new thread is kind of baiting, but his posting that sort of rubbish here is workable how? The joys of the anatomy of thread derailment... If only we were machines and there was this lovely wire of algorithms each thread could tiptoe out onto. EDIT: And holy shit, I just read page 2 --- what a pack of repetitive, useless, absurd, lies... So let me get this straight, they need to be left alone because 1/. Addressing them will derail the thread, even though the lies themselves were what derailed the thread, and 2/. if we actually debunked them AGAIN, in the next thread he shits all over, the current MO is that we go back to step 1/. Who's the fucking genius behind that? |
|
