Coggins7 wrote:And what does this have to do with my depreciation of the Seventies as the "age of enlightenment"? As to issues regarding Black people in America, the Seventies saw the marginalization and ultimate death of the old civil rights integrationist movement, lead by Martin Luther King, and the rise and dominance of the Black Power movement wrapped in the folds of the civil rights movement. The Seventies were the era of Jesse Jackson and the rise and consolidation of the racial grievance industry, including Affirmative Action and the rise of the "professional black", not "civil rights".
This reached its apogee in the Eighties with Multiculturalism, which has been aptly called our own indigenous intellectual National Socialism. Afrocentrism, with regard to Blacks, is the probably inevitable outcome of such ideologies being taken seriously.
Enlightenment indeed.
Of course, you're absolutely correct. The only time ever that a society made a change for the better instantly and with no steps backward along the way was when Christ appeared to the Nephites. But that's a work of fiction. Go figure.
I hope that while you were taking courses you found time enough after the study of your subject to study the professors. One may well learn more from studying the professor than studying the subject.
Wow. This statement really creeped me out. Packer blatantly supports the ad hominem fallacy.
How so? I took a course on Middle Eastern governments in which the professor claimed that the governments of Egypt and Iran are true democracies in the western sense. When I presented evidence to the contrary in my paper (they are not democracies in ANY sense), I got a "C" for the course without any explaination as to why the evidence I presented might be invalid (which was her claim). Come to find out during this process that she is a muslim/palestinian/feminist/lesbian. Figures!
I taught the theory of natural selection as part of my general biology course at UVSC. Whether or not a student accepts natural selection does not depend on his/her teacher's personal life and religious ideas. The student could study the professor all he/she wants and it will not have any impact on falsifying the theory of natural selection. When your worldview is only supported by appeals to intuition and authority, this may be a difficult concept to grasp.
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:I was the poster child for "sexually immature BYU student!!
And now you're the poster child for the physically sexually mature but psychologically and intellectually sexually immature Boomer pseudo-sophisticate middle aged Liberal.
Coggins7 wrote:And now you're the poster child for the physically sexually mature but psychologically and intellectually sexually immature Boomer pseudo-sophisticate middle aged Liberal.
Isn't it past high time to grow up?
I find it highly inappropriate of you to speculate on my current sexual status.
"People at BYU" and "sexually mature" are not two phrases I would put together.
In my experience, it is quite the opposite.
Your "experience" here appears as a baseless anecdote, and should be dismissed as such post haste.
And your conclusion to the opposite was based on what specifically?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
The funniest thing about this thread is the fact that best "authority" Loran is able to cite is.... (drum roll).... Wade Englund!
Actually, the really funny thing in this forum is Scratch citing intellectual and moral hacks like Focault and Derrida. Now that's the stuff of dark comedy indeed.
The funniest thing about this thread is the fact that best "authority" Loran is able to cite is.... (drum roll).... Wade Englund!
Actually, the really funny thing in this forum is Scratch citing intellectual and moral hacks like Focault and Derrida. Now that's the stuff of dark comedy indeed.
Just out of curiosity, what have you read from Foucault or Derrida? What is your opinion, for example, on Foucault's approach to history in "The Archeology of Knowledge"?