• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Undoing the dis-education of the modern day...

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
47,445
Reaction score
53,125
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Worth reading and considering, the author sums up my thoughts on the matter better than I could have.

Reasoning requires you to understand truth claims, even truth claims that you think are false or bad or just icky. Most of you have been taught to label things with various “isms” which prevent you from understanding claims you find uncomfortable or difficult.

Reasoning requires correct judgment. Judgment involves making distinctions, discriminating. Most of you have been taught how to avoid critical, evaluative judgments by appealing to simplistic terms such as “diversity” and “equality.”

Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials | NewBostonPost
 
The sad part is, that is a law school teacher who is teaching kids who are among some of the best at rational thinkers among their peer group. Imagine how bad the rest are



Indeed.

Well at least there are still a few of us who teach our children that "fair" and "feelings" will help not at all, when your face meets the Reality brick wall.
 
Idiotic fear mongering from someone who is afraid of losing the status quo. It relies on the false presumption that truth equals discrimination.
 
Idiotic fear mongering from someone who is afraid of losing the status quo. It relies on the false presumption that truth equals discrimination.

IMO, after reading the article, it seems an honest attempt to instill rational thought over emotion, logic over illogic, and critical thinking skills over dogmatism.

I agree that millennials have been imbued with perverse social ideals...equality of outcome over equality of opportunity, mere participation merits success and reward, emphasizing difference equates to individuality.

I am always glad to see teachers who challenge this.

 
Last edited:
Worth reading and considering, the author sums up my thoughts on the matter better than I could have.



Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials | NewBostonPost


I don't think he's right to apply this only to millennials. I what he's referring to is something most of humanity struggles with. We don't like to have our belief systems challenged. We don't care to actually understand why the people who disagree with us believe what they believe. People have been dismissing beliefs with catchalls like fascism, racism, communism, socialism, and the like for decades, before that dismissing ideas as blasphemy without examination. If it's possible to easily dismiss something with an -ism or an -ist or any other caricature of what it actually is, it's hard to overcome the temptation to do it. I find myself doing it all the time on here for instance, cutting corners in my own brain so that I don't have to actually deal with the substance of what someone says, which would be harder to attack. I try and avoid it, but I'm sure there are many times when I fail. Liberals and conservatives, old and young, all different races and ethnicities, I think this tendency is something that permeates all of us in rather similar degrees.

And in a way, I think this author is guilty of doing it himself in his dismissiveness here.
 
I don't think he's right to apply this only to millennials. I what he's referring to is something most of humanity struggles with. We don't like to have our belief systems challenged. We don't care to actually understand why the people who disagree with us believe what they believe. People have been dismissing beliefs with catchalls like fascism, racism, communism, socialism, and the like for decades, before that dismissing ideas as blasphemy without examination. If it's possible to easily dismiss something with an -ism or an -ist or any other caricature of what it actually is, it's hard to overcome the temptation to do it. I find myself doing it all the time on here for instance, cutting corners in my own brain so that I don't have to actually deal with the substance of what someone says, which would be harder to attack. I try and avoid it, but I'm sure there are many times when I fail. Liberals and conservatives, old and young, all different races and ethnicities, I think this tendency is something that permeates all of us in rather similar degrees.

And in a way, I think this author is guilty of doing it himself in his dismissiveness here.



In general I agree.

However I think it was once more generally expected, especially in university, to look beyond the labels and preconceptions and actually analyze things. The "slap an 'ism' on it and ignore it' thing does seem to have become codified and accepted as good to a much greater degree in recent years, along with "feelings > facts".
 
In general I agree.

However I think it was once more generally expected, especially in university, to look beyond the labels and preconceptions and actually analyze things. The "slap an 'ism' on it and ignore it' thing does seem to have become codified and accepted as good to a much greater degree in recent years, along with "feelings > facts".

The author's problem is that he mistakes people not thinking exactly like him for people not thinking. Guy comes across as something of a douche actually. "OH NOZ, people are not coming to the conclusion I think is right, the world is ending!!!!!!!". My dad's generation thought the same about my generation. My generation thinks the same of millennials. And then I look at some of the young posters we have had here, like Dav, or TheGoverness, and I realize that the future really is pretty bright.
 
Indeed.

Well at least there are still a few of us who teach our children that "fair" and "feelings" will help not at all, when your face meets the Reality brick wall.

I used to be called a prick with some of my juniors (initially) in the military because I would go off on them when they came to me complaining about someone or something.

The ones that started off with the "I Feel" nonsense would get a ass ripping.

I don't give a **** about what you feel........tell me what you think!
 
Indeed.

Well at least there are still a few of us who teach our children that "fair" and "feelings" will help not at all, when your face meets the Reality brick wall.

They will find that out, but telling them now is a little late; they won’t believe it. The horrible thing is the amount of damage they will do before reality bites. When states make mistakes it takes a long time to drain the depth of their pockets. In Europe i have been watching the flailing about in the vain attempt of politicians to obfuscate the necessities.
 
I used to be called a prick with some of my juniors (initially) in the military because I would go off on them when they came to me complaining about someone or something.

The ones that started off with the "I Feel" nonsense would get a ass ripping.

I don't give a **** about what you feel........tell me what you think!

I think the law professor has good rules here, but he went on far too long explaining them.
 
Worth reading and considering, the author sums up my thoughts on the matter better than I could have.
I call shenanigans.

MacLeod teaches at Faulkner Law, located in Montgomery Alabama, a self-described "Christian law school," and one of the most conservative law schools in the entire United States. And we're supposed to believe that the 1Ls there are raging liberals, brainwashed by undergrad PC profs? Is this guy for reals?

We're also supposed to believe that the proper response is to place all sorts of restrictions on ideas in the classroom? You fight intellectual fascism with... more intellectual fascism?

• Racism is an unproductive term? Welcome to Alabama.

• Sexism is an unproductive term? Because... women are never treated like second-class citizens? See above.

• Since when did younger people consider older generations are morally superior? Is that actually a problem? Does he really not understand what ageism is, or why ageism is a genuine problem?

• How is suppressing all discussion of racism, sexism, ageism and so forth any better than suppressing any other type of opinion?

• Has anyone here even glanced at the Code of Hammurabi? Allow me to quote a few sections of it:

2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.

7. If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.

22. If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.

110. If a "sister of a god" open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.

154. If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).

192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.

193. If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father's house, and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his father's house, then shall his eye be put out.

209. If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.


Much of the code deals with managing agricultural conflicts, issues relating to slaves, quite a few about incest, dealing with multiple wives, dowries, and so on. Some of the punishments are extreme -- death penalties, cutting off hands, drowning, putting out eyes, flogging, cutting off ears and more. Others are trivial by modern standards.

Now, I agree that there can be much value to reading the Code of Hammurabi. However, to say that the document is offensive to the modern student -- liberal or conservative -- is an understatement. I.e. a good teacher, instead of telling students to shut up, should explain to the students why they are reading a document that is, by modern standards, highly problematic.

Ultimately, despite a few decent points, he's not actually advocating for a critical perspective on the law. He's just declaring "my way or the highway," in an environment where students are not allowed to speak back. The idea that this essay is a triumph of liberty and freedom is ludicrous.
 
The sad part is, that is a law school teacher who is teaching kids who are among some of the best at rational thinkers among their peer group. Imagine how bad the rest are

Lulz. How many 1st year law students have you been around?

I can assure you, they're not necessarily among the best rational thinkers in their peer group.
 
In my day it was uphill in snow both ways. Kids these days, I tell ya. Why if it were up to these scallywags and n'er do wells, we'da lost a war! Off mah lawn, ya bastards!!

If there's one thing I pay attention to and avoid as I become a card carrying old person, it's that. I am not gonna be that dude. "My generation was so great, you guys suck." Self worth through group identity is pathetic, race religion age whatever.

I know old farts love these articles and arguments. They sit there, "yeah, we were the best". And it makes me laugh. I wonder what other random crap makes them best.
 
Hm. Interesting and varied reactions. :)
 
This speech reminds me of professor Kingsfield in Paper Chase

The Best Legal Movies That Every Law Student Should Watch

The Paper Chase (1973)

This is really the only serious flick about law school life. It’s brooding and intense, perfectly capturing the dynamic between law professor and student. The movie is worth watching just for actor John Houseman’s academy award winning performance as Professor Kingsfield. Every school still has a professor that knows how to absolutely terrify the 1Ls — for us at UChicago, that was Richard “The Hammer” Helmholz. The Paper Chase’s Professor Kingsfield is like a distillation every one of these scary Arch-villain type professors.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom