EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 174
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On March 23 2013 06:49 Roe wrote: I still think they should teach liberal arts at younger ages, get them involved in philosophy and a wide array of subjects. Then as they get older they'll have more experience and know what they want to do, or at least have a better idea. I guess it's sort of what we do now anyway, or at least where I went to school. You can teach people how to think in any study, the problem is to many studies focus on drilling facts into people's mind when they should be teaching them the reasons why/how and general problem solving. Endlessly learning lines and tables is something of the 80's and fortunately over here in the Netherlands we're moving more and more away from it. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On March 23 2013 06:45 oneofthem wrote: "learn how to think" is just an expression (perhaps incorrect) for a real phenomenon. there's knowledge in liberal arts, or at least it builds good attitudes and habits of thought. Indeed. I don't think that "liberal arts" is necessarily better than any other area of study in that regards though. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
North Dakota became the first state on Friday to pass a fetal personhood amendment, which grants legal personhood rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization. The state House of Representatives voted 57 to 35 to pass the amendment, after the Senate passed the same measure last month. The measure will now appear on the November 2014 ballot, and voters will be able to accept or reject it. If it passes, it will amend North Dakota's constitution to state that “the inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.” The amendment would ban abortion in the state, without exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, and it could affect the legality of some forms of birth control, stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. “The North Dakota legislature has taken historic strides to protect every human being in the state, paving the way for human rights nationwide,” Keith Mason, president of the anti-abortion advocacy group Personhood USA, said in a statement on Friday. “This amendment strikes the balance of accomplishing more for the unborn than any other amendment the nation has ever seen, while protecting pregnant women and their right to true medical care. We applaud the North Dakota House and Senate for their willingness to protect all of the people in their state.” Similar fetal personhood initiatives have been rejected by voters in several other states, including Mississippi, one of the most socially conservative states in the country. North Dakota state Rep. Kathy Hawken (R-Fargo) told HuffPost on Thursday that she and several of her Republican colleagues strongly oppose the bill and are planning to protest it at a women's health rally on Monday. "I have so many friends with grandchildren from in vitro fertilization, and to take that away from these people who desperately want children is not okay," she said. "I believe if men had babies we would not be having this discussion." Source | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On March 23 2013 10:44 ziggurat wrote: As a person with an undergrad in philosophy and history I have to question the value of a liberal arts education. I learned how to write moderately well in university but other than that I can't think of any other useful skills I learned. I learned a lot of interesting stuff, but nothing that helps me in the real world. As a person with an undergrad first in Economics who then switched to English, I have to question the person that questions the value of a liberal arts education. I learned that there is one thing in common to all things humans do, and that is that they involve people who must communicate with one another. I learned that one tends to get out of their education what one puts in, and my effort is certainly helping me in the real world. Anecdotes can only take us so far  | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
I believe the importance of it, is the independent, critical thinking foundation that can then be applied to any field of expertise or specialty. "Outside-the-box" thinking that drives innovation and makes people ask questions instead of just swallowing what the status quo and corporate influenced unis feed them. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On March 23 2013 11:05 screamingpalm wrote: Wow, lots of hate for liberal arts in here. :D I believe the importance of it, is the independent, critical thinking foundation that can then be applied to any field of expertise or specialty. "Outside-the-box" thinking that drives innovation and makes people ask questions instead of just swallowing what the status quo and corporate influenced unis feed them. I think there's only 1 person who mildly spoke against liberal arts degrees. I took a somewhat neutral stance, with the notion that "outside-the-box thinking" could be achieved with any kind of higher education. On March 23 2013 10:58 farvacola wrote: As a person with an undergrad first in Economics who then switched to English, I have to question the person that questions the value of a liberal arts education. I learned that there is one thing in common to all things humans do, and that is that they involve people who must communicate with one another. I learned that one tends to get out of their education what one puts in, and my effort is certainly helping me in the real world. Anecdotes can only take us so far I have to question the person that can't take a step back from their own degree/pursuit with a critical eye. Listening to those that defend the specific education path, you'd think they would be the first to be critical of it with their "superior critical thinking skills." | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On March 23 2013 11:12 aksfjh wrote: I think there's only 1 person who mildly spoke against liberal arts degrees. I took a somewhat neutral stance, with the notion that "outside-the-box thinking" could be achieved with any kind of higher education. My main issue came about with the common notion (and not just in this thread, but from many same discussions here, and elsewhere) that it is a waste of resources and seen as not having value. I just find that trend to be unfortunate. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On March 23 2013 11:41 screamingpalm wrote: My main issue came about with the common notion (and not just in this thread, but from many same discussions here, and elsewhere) that it is a waste of resources and seen as not having value. I just find that trend to be unfortunate. I'm not judging its value. If you want to do a degree in fashion design or women's studies or calligraphy or basket weaving or whatever you find personally fulfilling, then I think that's great! But don't complain if it doesn't get you a job. And don't try to pretend that it's "teaching you to think". | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On March 23 2013 11:12 aksfjh wrote: I think there's only 1 person who mildly spoke against liberal arts degrees. I took a somewhat neutral stance, with the notion that "outside-the-box thinking" could be achieved with any kind of higher education. I have to question the person that can't take a step back from their own degree/pursuit with a critical eye. Listening to those that defend the specific education path, you'd think they would be the first to be critical of it with their "superior critical thinking skills." I'm still deciding on exactly what I want to pursue a graduate education in, so yeah, I would never use my own experience to inform another in regards to the benefits of pursuing a specific path; I've already proven myself entirely too mercurial in that regard. Hence the "Anecdotes can only take us so far". If I gave you the impression that I consider the standard liberal arts form of education without flaws, I apologize; one of the reasons I'm considering teaching deals specifically with my desire to try and make a difference in how things are done. I'd love to have good conversation in regards to reforming our approach to the humanities; it desperately needs to be done. And oh yeah, where exactly is your step taken aback? You know, the requisite prostration you seem to insist on being present alongside a defense of an idea or concept? Because at this point, all we've gotten from you is that you think that the benefits of a liberal arts education are not unique in any way, and that they can be developed equally as well elsewhere, presumably in line with your own educational experience. Seems a little silly. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On March 23 2013 10:44 ziggurat wrote: As a person with an undergrad in philosophy and history I have to question the value of a liberal arts education. I learned how to write moderately well in university but other than that I can't think of any other useful skills I learned. I learned a lot of interesting stuff, but nothing that helps me in the real world. You would get the same results from any STEM type course. You can get by with simply learning facts and memorizing things, while being oblivious to the field's underlying philosophy. Ironically there isn't much useful to a STEM degree because it's so focused and vocational. Your education loses its value and flexibility rapidly unless you have that philosophical background (take the word philosophical in the lighter sense). This could be the fault of the teacher/curiculum, while your own interest in the subject and competence should also be in question when making these judgements. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4862 Posts
On March 23 2013 11:50 sc2superfan101 wrote: I'm really hoping that North Dakota amendment passes through popular consent, even though it will inevitably fail in the courts, sadly. Obviously, in my opinion it doesn't even go far enough, but it's a wonderful start and really forces the issue in a lot of ways. I just don't think the American people are ready for something like this though. To me, it is analogous with the slavery debate in the early years of the Union. Even people who knew it was wrong and were open about not supporting it considered it so much an institution of their daily life that to get rid of it didn't seem like an option. As society progresses though, we will see more movement toward the idea of abandoning the age-old practice. God knows that there were plenty of people who thought slavery would never end, but in hindsight, it seems almost inevitable that it would be destroyed. Progress is anathema to ancient discrimination and oppressions. Except many people view abortion as "progress," for some reason. But you are right, the un-elected, unaccountable Court has a history of making large and sweeping societal decisions based on the opinions of 5 justices. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 23 2013 11:54 farvacola wrote: If you think slavery and abortion are equitable in any way, you are so out of touch I can hardly believe it. It is always fun to see conservatives try and retake the word "progress" though. In any case, I hope pro-lifers adopt your rhetoric soon; the national debate will be over before it begins. Both ignored biological fact and instead depended on ignorance and pseudo-science to be justified. Both established that by some biological difference the one human being was worth less than the other, and both give the complete physical control of the body of one human being over to another. Both are as old as society itself, and both are predicated on the rights of the one who currently holds the power, rather than the rights of the one who is oppressed. Both attempt to justify their existence, to some degree, from the standpoint that the subject under control is benefiting from the imposition of said control. Both argue from tradition, and both are justified with fear. Fear that losing control of the controlled means losing the fundamental rights of self-determination, and fear that the forces fighting for the "emancipation" of the controlled have ulterior motives. They are remarkably similar positions. Of course there are some differences. One was mostly racial, the other based on development. But at the core, the positions are largely the same. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On March 23 2013 12:02 sc2superfan101 wrote: Both ignored biological fact and instead depended on ignorance and pseudo-science to be justified. Both established that by some biological difference the one human being was worth less than the other, and both give the complete physical control of the body of one human being over to another. Both are as old as society itself, and both are predicated on the rights of the one who currently holds the power, rather than the rights of the one who is oppressed. Both attempt to justify their existence, to some degree, from the standpoint that the subject under control is benefiting from the imposition of said control. Both argue from tradition, and both are justified with fear. Fear that losing control of the controlled means losing the fundamental rights of self-determination, and fear that the forces fighting for the "emancipation" of the controlled have ulterior motives. They are remarkably similar positions. Of course there are some differences. One was mostly racial, the other based on development. But at the core, the positions are largely the same. Your rhetoric drips with so much self-aggrandizing unequivocality I feel I need to grab a roll of paper towels. That you can so demonize one side of the debate without even the slightest hint of moderation is endemic to the Republican Party as a whole, and it is why they lost the 2012 election. Let's look at the very first line. Both ignored biological fact and instead depended on ignorance and pseudo-science to be justified. To simply throw out phrases like "biological fact" and "pseudo-science" is to put forth the notion that your referenced concepts are standard fare and common parlance; nothing could be further from the truth. The precise status of a fetus and it's place relative to the mother is a point of incredibly hot contention; if you'd like to level a claim of pseudo-science and dominion over biological fact, you are going to need to way more than simply say "these are mine". | ||
| ||
