Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Common sense isn't something that is infallible and is often resting upon incorrect assumptions doe to a lack of information ie: education.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Republicans Hate College Now, Apparently
- Thread starter Quintessence
- Start date
Common sense isn't something that is infallible and is often resting upon incorrect assumptions doe to a lack of information ie: education.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Too bad we can't just trade places, lol. I'd rather go to Canada, but I'm somewhat high maintenance medically with my knee so any stable and not-in-jeopardy health care is a good trade off any way I can take it to know I can get treatment.
No.
Consider the 2 common scenarios....
1) I sue because someone owes, but won't pay.
I win the case, but then I have to collect.
This is the hard part, usually collecting cents on the dollar.
So I don't file many suits.
Instead, I negotiate what I can, & give up on the balance.
2) It's cheap to file suit, but expensive to defend.
So frivolous (suits without merit) ones to exact money (legal extortion) are common.
One is guaranteed to lose.
The questions become.....
A) Minimize the loss by settling (giving in to extortion), keeping legal fees down.
B) Fight to the bitter end. One spends more, but one.....
B.1) Has the satisfaction of winning.
B.2) Sends a message to others who might try the same scheme.
Judges don't award costs to the prevailing party, even when the plaintiff lacks merit.
A typical suit which goes to trial is at least $100,000 (in my experience).
So winning is very expensive indeed.
Oh...you're serious.
Some crimes are sanctioned, but the system also has criminal behavior embedded in it.
When it's considered legal, then it's permitted criminality, eg, filing false suits to extort money.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Common sense does not outweigh education. Are you suggesting that it does and that all avenues of formal learning should be terminated?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
There is no such thing as "common sense."
Interestingly, some of the most beneficial lessons learned at college were not "book learning" facts. It was the exposure of various opinions, cultures, demographics, etc. Those soft skills are things that I would not have experienced otherwise.
Yeah, well learning will do that to you....
And precisely the things that the socially conservative thinker would prefer that you (and more importantly their children) had never had access to. Exposure to "various opinions, cultures, demographics, etc." can lead to (GASP!) heterodox beliefs!
The "social conservative" is a person who believes, strongly and with righteous conviction, that everyone has the right to the freedom to live their own life in their own way -- just so long as it is congruent with his own.
You make modern liberals sound as socially conservative as social conservatives.
True. But surely you know how easily these labels of "liberal" and "conservative" have switched meaning repeatedly over the last few hundred years in England, the US and Canada.
I'd be very happy to discuss what I think liberal/conservative have meant over the last couple of centuries, if you're interested -- though I suspect we'd not be far apart.
Prove it.
But intolerance towards other beliefs is one thing both share at times.
Maybe....maybe not.
There's the added complexity of differing use among continents too.
I identify as a classical liberal.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
There is no evidence of this. There is evidence that people with more education tend to hold more liberal views and that people who lack higher education tend to be part of the Republican base.
Have you ever been to a uni campus? Perhaps liberals don't think it's liberal because liberal is 'normal' now. Unis are full of SJWS, feminists and ultra-liberals. Or, at least, in my experience.People will thus come out of these places thoroughly brainwashed.
Erebus
Well-Known Member
It's certainly true that book learning isn't a "fix all" solution. Experience, adaptability and sheer natural talent are all valuable qualities.
Common sense though ... that's not as great as a lot of people tend to assume. I'm particularly critical of people relying on what they see as "common sense" in the political sphere. The problem with assuming that common sense is automatically a good thing is that it also assumes that anything complex is therefore lesser, if not outright negative. A common sense solution is simple and considered to be effective precisely because of its simplicity. In effect, common sense is considered to be self evident. If any opposition to that solution is complex and requires explanation/expertise, then that opposition is obviously not common sense.
For example, "We'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is a common sense solution to the problem of immigration. It's simple, requires little explanation and is therefore clearly correct.
Explaining why building a wall and making Mexico pay for it might not work is more complicated. It relies on discussing things like the nature of immigration, the cost involved in building a wall, why Mexico won't pay for it and so on. Because of its complexity, this criticism isn't common sense.
Now, I don't know what your political alignment is but there's the chance that you may be thinking something along the lines of "building the wall isn't common sense!"
That leads onto the next issue with common sense: Plenty of people hold completely contradictory stances that they all consider to be common sense positions. Furthermore, because common sense is considered self evident, there's absolutely no reason for them to back up why their stance is common sense and the contradictory one isn't.
I think you are letting your experiences sway your overall opinion of universities as a whole. Unfortunately, I think you are cutting them too short, too fast.
Some of that may be a sign of the times. When I was in college (back in the Reagan era), I was astounded by how many conservatives there were on campus. Rich frat-boys, College Republicans, and quite a number of conservative faculty and administrators.
Liberals were quite a bit more subdued, and it was before anyone ever heard of anything called "political correctness." That didn't really start to come about until the late 80s/early 90s. But by that time, most liberals were unwilling or too scared to attack conservative economic policies, so they put their political capital into what they perceived as a "sure thing."
The 60s were a distant memory by then, and most of the country had already accepted the values and ideals associated with the civil rights movement, feminism, etc. So, by turning up the notch in those areas (while toning down their economic ideals in order to not offend the Reagan Robots), the liberals correctly predicted that they would gain politically - which they did when Clinton was elected in '92.
So, the "SJW" crowd that you refer to are merely dupes and panderers who advocate for ideals that most people agreed with already for decades. I consider it a form of political cowardice, since they're going after the "easy meat" in a shameless attempt to garner political capital and support. This is unfortunate, because when they really did want to activate for something meaningful (like Occupy Wall Street), it fizzled out badly because they had very little political understanding of what it means to actually fight against the establishment. They're basically resting on their own laurels, wanting to re-live past glories of the Civil Rights Movement and even the Civil War itself (since they've also been on this Confederate flag kick recently). They refuse to look towards the future, and that's where they've gone wrong. All they can do is look back on the past with fondness and sentimentality, but they don't have anything new to offer - which is exactly how all the banksters on Wall Street want them to be.