Do conservatives ever wonder WHY liberalism is prevalent in higher education?

[Cecilie1200]

A Bachelor of the Arts in psychology? Couldn't even handle the fake science behind psychology, and had to settle for a BA degree.

How is this different than our conservative friend above who has, apparently, a 'BA' in mechanical engineering? I looked it up and such a degree does exist, but it is easier than a BS in mechanical engineering.

The avalanche of abuse being heaped on the OP: all this does is prove how limited are those heaping the abuse.

He said he has a BS, which is a Bachelor of Science. That means he actually had to do real math to graduate, that is how it is different.

I suspect they also covered reading comprehension, which Esme's education, whatever it might have been, clearly did not.

 

[P@triot]

Rather the point. Academics, particularly the liberal ones, are experts on theories that should be written on toilet paper, since wiping your ass with them is the only thing they're good for in the real world.

I don't have to know you to know you have never set foot inside of a college classroom.

Yeah, so glad we have those "intellectuals" of "higher education"...

"It's amazing how the 'whites' get angry when Obama speaks. Oh well....its most of the whites who is getting blown away. So they will soon be wiped from the earth. Lol" - Ms. Karon Wright, counselor at Andrew Jackson Middle School in Grand Prairie ISD.

Texas School Counselor ?Relieved of All Duties? Over Shockingly Racist Post After Fertilizer Explosion: ?Whites?Soon Will Be Wiped from the Earth? | TheBlaze.com

That is simply astounding grammar by a libtard of "higher education"

"....its most of the whites who is getting blown away".... Seriously? This is the kind of inner city ghetto trash which is "educating" our children? What kind of ghetto broad says "its most of the whites WHO IS getting blown away"?

Seriously, when I see libtards using grammar like this, libtards like Gosnell murdering babies, libtards like Joe Biden telling people to buy a double-barrel shotgun (like it's the late 1800's ) and shoot two rounds through their front door if they hear a sound, libtards like Nancy Pelosi state "we have to pass the bill before we can find out what's in it" - I always think, how are other libtards not mortified?!?! I could NEVER stand with and identify myself with people this ****'n stupid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My degree is not in philosophy nor in political science, if it were, you would have a point. Instead, you are an idiot.

Did you miss the part where I said history? I learned about the enlightenment in high school, and actually had to write about Locke as part of my high school civics class.

Who the **** cares? Since when does knowing who Locke is a measure of intelligence;

It's a measure of basic education, and YOU are the one who keeps trying to claim that education equals intelligence.

As for "who the **** cares", the answer would be, "Educated people".

 

[P@triot]

IN theory these are good programs. In practice, they SUCK...
Both are in danger of collapse. This is due to mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse.
Liberals are constantly tripping over the laws of unintended consequences.

Rather the point. Academics, particularly the liberal ones, are experts on theories that should be written on toilet paper, since wiping your ass with them is the only thing they're good for in the real world.

I don't have to know you to know you have never set foot inside of a college classroom.

Yeah, so glad we have those "intellectuals" of "higher education"...

• Leader of the Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist group of the 1960s and '70s
  
  
• “Kill all the rich people. ... Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.” - Bill Ayers
  
  
• Participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972
  
  
• Worked as a professor of education at the University of Illinois from 1987-2010

Bill Ayers - Discover the Networks[/QUOTE]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who the **** cares? Since when does knowing who Locke is a measure of intelligence;

It is a measure of general knowledge, which is part of a good education. Your education obviously lacks in some serious areas, which might explain why you think that there is no liberal bias in education. Everyone I know who is involved in academics acknowledges the bias you insist does not exist.

Um no, it is a measure of knowledge. I'm not sure you know what the word general means.

The phrase "general knowledge" means "knowledge that is available to everyone". And as Quantum pointed out, John Locke and his importance to American government is taught in high school, which is available to everyone.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's easy to figure why liberals infect academe.

Because they are insulated inside their little "intellectual" circles, away from the real world.

That's why "intellectuals" are the ones to come up with the most disastrous ideas that have infected society.

Some ideas are so stupid, only intellectuals could believe them -- George Orwell

There is some disagreement on the internet, on who said that first, but the validity of the saying, is not diminished even in that light.

George Orwell did not write that. I know his 'voice' as a writer. He does not term things in such a manner; he does not use language as it is used in that quotation. It is not his writing style or his voice, and the utter inanity of the way the idea is expressed is not his intellectually.

If you can prove he wrote this, please site the exact source, i.e., the text in which this can be found.

The difference between an "intellectual" and an actually intelligent, educated person is this: the "intellectual" babbles about "knowing his voice as a writer", and the intelligent, educated person knows the actual quote.

The one cited is actually a paraphrase of what Orwell said about politics, which was, "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool." And he said it in Notes on Nationalism.

You're welcome.

 

[Liberal]

Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.

Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME

Satoshi Kanazawa did an extensive study which shows that people with a higher IQ and more education are more likely to consider themselves "Liberal".

"He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thomas Sowell wrote an entire book on Intellectuals and Society and examines why Intellectualism is so toxic.

Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society - YouTube

LOLOL, Thomas Sowell IS an intellectual who attended Howard University,

got his Masters from the ultra-liberal Columbia University,

and his doctorate from the University of Chicago, where he shares alumni status with the likes of Sol Alinsky.

too funny, retard.

Yep, and he used to be a Marxist until he started working for the department of labor and saw stuff that made him wake up.

Interestingly, George Orwell had a quote about that, too: "The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

 

[P@triot]

Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.

Texas Teacher Claims She Couldn't Have Fondled Black Student because She's Racist

Onswipe

Yeah - those "intellectuals" of "higher education sure are special, aren't they?

 

[Cecilie1200]

IN theory these are good programs. In practice, they SUCK...
Both are in danger of collapse. This is due to mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse.
Liberals are constantly tripping over the laws of unintended consequences.

Rather the point. Academics, particularly the liberal ones, are experts on theories that should be written on toilet paper, since wiping your ass with them is the only thing they're good for in the real world.

I don't have to know you to know you have never set foot inside of a college classroom.

Well, if that's what you've decided to "know", then I guess it's a good thing you DON'T know me. Otherwise, you'd be forced to know something you don't like, and we all know how liberals are about that sort of thing.

It must be nice to live in a world where facts are chosen, rather than immutable. I assume that's the reason so many liberals become academics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.

Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME

Satoshi Kanazawa did an extensive study which shows that people with a higher IQ and more education are more likely to consider themselves "Liberal".

"He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire."

Yes, I believe we covered this earlier in the thread with the George Orwell quote: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dude seriously give it a rest. You're embarrassing yourself. You're making shit up. It's pathetic.

If I made anything up you should be able to show me one of two things.

1. The definitive study that shows a causal link between genetics and behavior.
2. The fact that current studies searching for this link are thoroughly debunked in psychology journals.

Use your art degree in fake science to prove me wrong.

You're the one who is coming up with this bullshit. The burden of proof is on you. That's how this forum works douche bag.

What do you think I have failed to prove? Be specific, if your art degree in fake science taught you what specific means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll tell you what isn't intelligent, getting into tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a liberal arts degree with no marketability outside the field. But I guess the definition is subjective eh?

good point...sociology degrees for everyone....wooohooo you can be a waiter paying off student loans....and liberals complain about the little guy getting hammered??

Where is the outrage over education costs....SKYROCKETING!!!!!!!!!

I have always assumed that people get degrees in psychology and sociology because they can't hack the math requirements for a REAL degree.

I didn't even know they had BAs in psychology, he coudn't even handle the simple math you need for a BS in the field.

 

[Cecilie1200]

good point...sociology degrees for everyone....wooohooo you can be a waiter paying off student loans....and liberals complain about the little guy getting hammered??

Where is the outrage over education costs....SKYROCKETING!!!!!!!!!

I have always assumed that people get degrees in psychology and sociology because they can't hack the math requirements for a REAL degree.

I didn't even know they had BAs in psychology, he coudn't even handle the simple math you need for a BS in the field.

Psychology is an undergrad degree you get because you went to college simply for the sake of going, and then found out that you had to declare a major.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.

Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME

Satoshi Kanazawa did an extensive study which shows that people with a higher IQ and more education are more likely to consider themselves "Liberal".

"He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire."

I am going to start collecting all of you idiots and mounting your heads in a special thread dedicated to proving how stupid someone had to be to believe a study that proves they are intelligent just because they believe something.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Perhaps its because liberalism represents intellectual ideas? Perhaps something can be said why political scientists tend to be liberal.

Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME

Satoshi Kanazawa did an extensive study which shows that people with a higher IQ and more education are more likely to consider themselves "Liberal".

"He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire."

Yes, I believe we covered this earlier in the thread with the George Orwell quote: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

The biggest question is, assuming Satoshi Kanazawa is correct in his analysis, how does he explain the emergence of ancient societies and civilizations? Since liberalism today is really a 20th century phenomenon, then what values were espoused before then?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME

Satoshi Kanazawa did an extensive study which shows that people with a higher IQ and more education are more likely to consider themselves "Liberal".

"He argues that smarter people are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values — that is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment, including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never would have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own clan and our only real technology was fire."

Yes, I believe we covered this earlier in the thread with the George Orwell quote: "One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

The biggest question is, assuming Satoshi Kanazawa is correct in his analysis, how does he explain the emergence of ancient societies and civilizations? Since liberalism today is really a 20th century phenomenon, then what values were espoused before then?

The even-bigger question is, why would I ever assume Satoshi Kanazawa is correct, much less consent to participating in any discussions predicated on such an assumption?

 

[editec]

Intellectual -- a person whose opinions are based on the best possible information at hand

Liberal -- a person whose opinions are based on the best possible information at hand that AGREES with their prejudices- prejudices that demand no evidence in the first place.

Conservative --a person whose opinions are based on the best possible information at hand that AGREES with their prejudices - prejudices that demand no evidence in the first place.

 

[Wicked Jester]

No, you still dont get it. This very specific party you are citing is NOT the liberal party nor is it the major democratic party.

Yes it is, they have the same exact ideology and they have hi-jacked the word liberal (now going back to the word progressive) and they stand for the exact opposite of true liberalism. They are oppressors and not liberators.
The have also hi-jacked the party and now control the whole party.
This is why over 800,000 have left the party since 2011.

No, those two parties I mentioned in my last post do not exist anymore. It's convenient you left out the wiki article to modern liberalism. If you were to read that article - and i suggest you should - you will see that the socialist movement is NOT the same thing as modern liberalism.

Wikipedia?

Well, there ya' have it.

Unbelievable.

 

[peach174]

Marxism, socialism, and communism have nothing to do with a free market system.

What part of a combo of all three are you not understanding?
That's why liberals have huge regulations that hold back the free market system.
If liberals were for the free market system, they would not keep adding tons of regulations on businesses. It keeps them from expanding their business and hiring more employees.

Regulations are necessary. Do you know who has publically stated that regulations are necessary? Self made business man and republican Mitt Romney. Look it up.

There is a great big difference between necessary regulations and tons of unnecessary regulations.
We are getting so many, that we are going down the road of some African Nations that created so many (and we are getting there fast), that it created illegal black markets.
Once they started getting rid of them their markets started coming back and people were able to get jobs again.