AlexCrowley 0 #26 January 17, 2006 What the fuck? Goerring was slightly left of the current political climate. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #27 January 17, 2006 What kind of textbooks are you reading? The textbooks I had didn't seem to have room for politics... I think I'd have a hard time recognizing the conservative position on computer architecture, or the liberal position on abstract algebra...My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #28 January 17, 2006 you're obviously not very pretentious then TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #29 January 18, 2006 Quote you're obviously not very pretentious then I did some time on that a few years back. Damn judge was corrupt.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #30 January 18, 2006 QuoteWhat kind of textbooks are you reading? The books that seem to be written from a liberal point of view: government, sociology, anthropology, anatomy & physiology... One of my chemistry books even made a direct jab at the Bush administration, which I thought was a bit odd in a chemistry book (but now I can't remember what it said - I think it might have had something to do with their lack of effort to protect the environment, or something like that). And some of my textbooks have just stuck to the point without appearing to lean either way... but I've never noticed any of them leaning toward the conservative side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 January 18, 2006 Liberals, by their definition, look to change the status quo by moving it to uncharted territories. Check out schools, who have newfangled ideas that toss out hundreds of years of effective teaching to try to make it better. Oops! That didn't work. Well, let's try somethign new. How about 'Whole syllable reading' Let's see if it works in English like in Japanese!" Conservatives, by definition, look to maintain the status quo or to move backwards to the way things were. "Enough of this newfangled educational bullshit, let's teach reading, writing and arithmetic. It worked fine all those years." Academics are great for thinking up new solutions to problems that do or do not exist. Academics get published for new ideas and novel thoughts. You'll find that a number of liberals go into the liberal arts. You dont' find many conservatives in Women's Studies, sociology, etc. It's not usually something that conservatives even care about understanding in the first place. Thus, you'll find the faculties pretty liberal in those subjects. Honestly, the art of a tribe that lived on the other side of the world 500 years ago doesn't matter much to conservatives like Joe six-pack. You'll find a more even split in the hard sciences and engineering. What does sociology have to do with plate tectonics? Of course, plate tectonics can have an impact on sociology, and you'll likely find more liberals qho can speak as an expert on that stuff/ Faculties are liberal because faculties are there to think and teach. "Those that can do. Those that can't teach." I don't agree with that, but there are some examples. Spend a lot of time thinking about stuff and you'll have some neat thoughts abotu how things can be made better. We need people like that. But you've also go the doers who will say, "Um, I think you failed to consider something - sure, this would be a nice result, but why would anybody WANT to do what you suggest?" A highly studied academic could prove that in non-euclidian geometry, 2 plus 1 does not equal 3. Sure, they are right. And it's a nice liberal thought to change the way things are viewed. And it's a mighty neat thing. But what good does that do 99.99999999 percent of the population? None yet. Maybe in 1000 years it will be useful. A conservative would say "for now, let's keep 2 plus 1 = 3 until someone comes along to find more useful applications for the alternative." Let the liberals do most of the thinking. They're pretty good at it. Let the conservatives do most of the doing. They're good at it. Allow some cross-pollenation and see what happens. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #32 January 18, 2006 >And some of my textbooks have just stuck to the point without > appearing to lean either way... but I've never noticed any of them > leaning toward the conservative side. Keep in mind that textbooks are just books recommended by a given professor; they will likely choose books that reflect their views. Right now I'm reading "Icons of Evolution" for example. The opinions expressed within are quite conservative, given that it purports to be a biology book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #33 January 18, 2006 QuoteWhat kind of textbooks are you reading? The textbooks I had didn't seem to have room for politics... I think I'd have a hard time recognizing the conservative position on computer architecture, or the liberal position on abstract algebra... Open your eyes Nathaniel - “To facilitate DMA transfers from I/O processors, the following features are provided: Addressing: It must be possible to distinguish modules on the bus to determine the source and destination data. Arbitration: Any I/O module can temporarily function as ‘master.’ A mechanism is provided to arbitrate competing requests for bus control, using some sort of priority scheme. Time sharing: When one module is controlling the bus, other modules are locked out and must, if necessary, suspend operation until bus access is achieved.” These uniprocessor features are directly usable in an SMP organization.” William Stallings, Computer Organization & Architecture Designing For Performance (6th ed. 2003) at 650. How an intelligent person could fail to see the blatant social engineering such as the above that has crept into our mainstream technical engineering textbooks truly astounds me. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 January 18, 2006 "Bus control?" "Master?" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #35 January 18, 2006 QuoteKeep in mind that textbooks are just books recommended by a given professor; they will likely choose books that reflect their views. Right now I'm reading "Icons of Evolution" for example. The opinions expressed within are quite conservative, given that it purports to be a biology book. The textbooks that I have had for most subjects seem to be the most widely-used books for that particular subject, from what I have been able to tell. And of all the textbook reviews I have read (including some that were not textbooks required by the school), I'm pretty sure that I have never seen anyone complaining that the author came across as being conservative. I'm sure those books are out there, but my experience makes me think that textbooks used in U.S. colleges/universities are more likely to have a liberal perspective than a conservative perspective. Oh, and I just read through a bunch of reviews for "Icons of Evolution," and none of the people reviewing it appeared to have read it as required reading for a class (they usually tend to mention if that is why they read it), so I am guessing that it wasn't specifically written to be a college textbook. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #36 January 18, 2006 much like what pajarito was saying, professors and the like tend to be liberal because they spend most of their lives sheltered from the real world. they think and hypothesize based on some form of utopia. they make judgements based on how things "ought to be", not how things really are. e.g. many liberal thinkers said that the war in afghanistan was unnecessary. they said that we should negotiate and reason and compromise etc. the real world fact is that terrorists don't respond to reason, logic, or compromise. the taliban was on a mission to rid the world of western ideology at any cost. so, the real world answer to that problem is: try diplomacy and reason first but if that doesn't produce results and your country is in any danger of attack, it's time for bombs and bullets to make certain that your people aren't harmed."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #37 January 18, 2006 Quote e.g. many liberal thinkers said that the war in afghanistan was unnecessary. they said that we should negotiate and reason and compromise etc. the real world fact is that terrorists don't respond to reason, logic, or compromise. the taliban was on a mission to rid the world of western ideology at any cost. so, the real world answer to that problem is: try diplomacy and reason first but if that doesn't produce results and your country is in any danger of attack, it's time for bombs and bullets to make certain that your people aren't harmed. I have yet to meet anyone who professes to be liberal and thinks the war in Afghanistan was unnecessary, and I bet I know more liberals than you. What a load of codswallop!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #38 January 18, 2006 Quote A highly studied academic could prove that in non-euclidian geometry, 2 plus 1 does not equal 3. Sure, they are right. And it's a nice liberal thought to change the way things are viewed. And it's a mighty neat thing. But what good does that do 99.99999999 percent of the population? None yet. Maybe in 1000 years it will be useful. A conservative would say "for now, let's keep 2 plus 1 = 3 until someone comes along to find more useful applications for the alternative." You mean like the non-Euclidean geometry that's necessary to make the GPS system work? Damn good job some creative thinker came up with that idea or your jump pilot wouldn't be able to spot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 January 18, 2006 QuoteQuote A highly studied academic could prove that in non-euclidian geometry, 2 plus 1 does not equal 3. Sure, they are right. And it's a nice liberal thought to change the way things are viewed. And it's a mighty neat thing. But what good does that do 99.99999999 percent of the population? None yet. Maybe in 1000 years it will be useful. A conservative would say "for now, let's keep 2 plus 1 = 3 until someone comes along to find more useful applications for the alternative." You mean like the non-Euclidean geometry that's necessary to make the GPS system work? Damn good job some creative thinker came up with that idea or your jump pilot wouldn't be able to spot. Exactly! Prof, I used that as an example of the greatness and good ideas that novel thought brings. It has applications for the general population. But, the general population has no use for knowing it. We won't stop teaching that 2 + 1 = 3. Because it works for 99.999999 percent of the population, and 99.99999999999999 percent of the uses of numbers and mathematics. It's got some limited usefulness in things that everyone can use and appreciate. A conservative thinker would not have thought of it. Non-Euclidean geometry was fundamentally different. it took guts to think outside the box, and we now have benefits. But why not start off with arithmetic? That's my point. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 January 18, 2006 I'm just puking and drowning in stereotyping here. Thanks, that's painful ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #41 January 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote A highly studied academic could prove that in non-euclidian geometry, 2 plus 1 does not equal 3. Sure, they are right. And it's a nice liberal thought to change the way things are viewed. And it's a mighty neat thing. But what good does that do 99.99999999 percent of the population? None yet. Maybe in 1000 years it will be useful. A conservative would say "for now, let's keep 2 plus 1 = 3 until someone comes along to find more useful applications for the alternative." You mean like the non-Euclidean geometry that's necessary to make the GPS system work? Damn good job some creative thinker came up with that idea or your jump pilot wouldn't be able to spot. Exactly! Prof, I used that as an example of the greatness and good ideas that novel thought brings. It has applications for the general population. But, the general population has no use for knowing it. We won't stop teaching that 2 + 1 = 3. Because it works for 99.999999 percent of the population, and 99.99999999999999 percent of the uses of numbers and mathematics. It's got some limited usefulness in things that everyone can use and appreciate. A conservative thinker would not have thought of it. Non-Euclidean geometry was fundamentally different. it took guts to think outside the box, and we now have benefits. But why not start off with arithmetic? That's my point. Liberals would like their idealized version of the 22nd Century NOW. Conservatives would like their idealized version of the 18th century NOW.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #42 January 18, 2006 Quote Non-Euclidian geometry isn't gonna help me balance my checkbook. Not until you try to do it on the back of a potato chip...My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #43 January 18, 2006 QuoteAnd because she spent a lot of time in school, she ended up with a comprehensive education. One does not necessarily have to spend a lot of time in school to receive a comprehensive education. In fact, sometimes spending a lot of time in school can cause one to have a narrow view of the world. I think it depends, whether you spend a lot of time in school or not, on how much you are able to think for yourself. QuoteA hospital, or a university, or a design center, or even a drop zone is a fairly small community that will inevitably shelter people from the 'real world', which is inevitably defined as 'everything else.' I'm still trying to figure out what this "real world" thing is... I'm pretty sure that everyone, whether they are going to college, or in the military, or working at McDonalds, or whatever... is living in the real world. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #44 January 18, 2006 >One does not necessarily have to spend a lot of time in school to receive >a comprehensive education. No, but it's a LOT easier. >In fact, sometimes spending a lot of time in school can cause one to >have a narrow view of the world. Those are two different things - one's education and one's worldview. I have found them to be largely independent of one another. I know people who have dropped out of school, gone into their father's business, and have had that be their entire life. I also know people who spend literally decades in school, and during the summer work in places like Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and India as relief workers. >I'm still trying to figure out what this "real world" thing is... I'm pretty sure >that everyone, whether they are going to college, or in the military, or >working at McDonalds, or whatever... is living in the real world. The "real world" is the place that you're not. Hence people at the DZ refer to the "real world" as the place where people go to work every day at a job that does not involve jumping out of things. People who work in cubicle mazes refer to the "real world" as meaning a place where you don't sit in a 8' x 8' box all day under flourescent lights. I figure porn stars refer to the "real world" as a place where you don't get paid to have sex with people. They're all living in _a_ real world, of course. But many don't see it that way, at least in my experience. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #45 January 18, 2006 Quotethe weight of intellectuals are liberal. Well if we're talking about intellectul meaning level/amount of education, which seems to be what the majority of this thread is leaning towards, then I can safely say I work for a "company" where thousands of members have at least Masters Degrees, many have PhDs, and on the average, the majority is conservative. This is just my "company;" what about the the corporate world in which upper management tend to have Master Degrees and on the average, tend to be center, if not conservative leaning? QuoteThe lower class right (such as those that frequent the internet) are mostly the uneducated, brainwashed into thinking in black and white terms and have learned to not ask questions. Wow! The exact definition applies to the lower class left! Now I just helped you make an unbiased and correct statement! No need to thank me, I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #46 January 18, 2006 QuoteThose are two different things - one's education and one's worldview. True... People are living their lives and learning whether they are in school or not, and the diversity of their experience in either situation is going to affect their worldview. But I think a person's worldview is also affected by their natural ability to think for themselves. There are some people who spend years in college and the only "intellect" they have acquired is the ability to regurgitate the ideas of their favorite instructors. QuoteThe "real world" is the place that you're not. It often seems to be used to describe where you are but others are not, as in, "Yeah, that's easy for them because they've never had to live in the real world." In either instance, it seems to me to be some silly phrase that is used in an effort to separate oneself from others, but it has no real meaning at all (except as a show on MTV). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #47 January 18, 2006 Quote they spend most of their lives sheltered from the real world. I'm still looking for this shelter everyone is talking about....what am I sheltered from? Bills? Work? Rain?????Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #48 January 18, 2006 Quote Radicals would like their idealized version of the 22nd Century NOW. Reactionaries would like their idealized version of the 18th century NOW. I fixed it to fit with your definition. The pragmatic problems with reactionaries and radicals are plainly evident in the statement. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #49 January 18, 2006 QuoteI'm just puking and drowning in stereotyping here. Thanks, that's painful Yeah, its making me itch. Is this a rash?Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #50 January 18, 2006 QuoteIs this a rash? errrrr, nope. It looks like a gummy bear ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
