Where do you see ‘magical worldview’ in my post? Please read what I actually write.
I imagine you saw what you say you did. Was it universal? No. Did every student emerge from those classes firmly believing what they were told? Be honest.
I ran into profs who tried to indoctrinate me, too. They were Soviet expats who had a grudge against their former homeland who tried to teach me that everything about it was evil. They were not ‘liberal’. But the rest of my profs taught - and encouraged - individual exploration and critical thinking.
Then what’s so hateful about liberal ideals?
And how often does a university student with many profs over the course of several years in school, find a set of profs with identical viewpoints who then proceed to ‘indoctrinate’ students? Are you saying that American universities don’t teach kids to think for themselves? Because if that’s your claim, that’s a whole other problem.
Provide examples. And make them ones where the ‘facts’ are actually supportable, unlike the ‘fact’ that ‘universities indoctrinate people’.
But some people don’t just ask people to shut up. They insist that criticizing the country and/or its administration is ‘un-American’. Do you claim that’s an acceptable statement?
Don’t dodge. You said “strange world of their own imaginings.” I.e., imaginary. Not corresponding to reality. (Magical.)
I ask again: you really believe that that describes atheists more accurately than religious believers? What leads you to that conclusion?
I think I already was honest about whether or not it was universal. Reread the first paragraph of my post, which you quoted. As far as whether or not people left the classroom believing what they were told, I have no idea. Most of the classmates I knew in my major were liberal, but I’m sure that’s partly because liberals are more attracted to the social sciences than conservatives.
Lucky for you.
I don’t understand the question. The president doesn’t embody conservative ideals, as I am familiar with them, and embrace them. Why would his politics and actions make me turn MY back on those ideals?
That is not my claim. Not sure where you came up with that. SOME professors use their position to try to sway students. I saw SOME of that, but it certainly was not rampant. I believe that most social sciences professors are liberal, but whether or not they all demonstrate that in the classroom is another story. I think a lot of that is overblown.
Providing examples would turn this conversation into a discussion of economics, which is going off track. And, anyway euclidator didn’t provide examples, either…just his opinion, as I gave mine.
Did someone say that here? I guess I missed it. You sure claim I’m making a lot of claims that I haven’t actually made.
And by the way, Quiddity, I do not appreciate your implication that I might be less than honest in reporting my experiences. I have no reason not to be honest in any of my conversations on this board. No one else has ever accused me of not being honest, and I am sure that I have not given you a reason to believe this of me. If you feel that you have caught me in a lie, please feel free to call me out on that, but until then, let’s assume that people are being honest, shall we?
No. As in ‘delusional world where sneaky indoctrinators lurk in universities and churches brainwashing the unthinking drones which make up the majority of humanity’.
I am just asking you what about liberal ideals is so repugnant and what about conservative ideals so marvellous?
Nonetheless, you sounded as though you bought into the ‘liberal indoctrination’ theory when you wrote
No, it would be providing some actual facts to support this claim of ‘indoctrination’. However it seems you’re backing away from it a bit.
I believe you missed the entire first page:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8485225&postcount=19
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8485471&postcount=24
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8486020&postcount=30
That was your inference, not my implication. I asked a question and asked for an honest answer.
I see. Thanks for clarifying your stereotype. Clearly, atheists are the ones holding a “passing acquaintance with facts, or truth.”
Broad brush feels nice when it’s in your own sweaty little fist, I suppose.
Again, this is not the point. The point is it would be marvellous for students to learn both points of view. I would be equally unhappy if a professor was only giving the conservative point of view, and I would be equally unhappy if politics was even being discussed in classes where it’s not relevant.
No, that is you reading way too much into it. All I was trying to say is that I don’t believe things happen through conspiracy.
I back away from nothing I have said. You made assumptions, and I had to clarify, that’s all. And in any case, the point wasn’t about who has facts on their side, it’s that ALL the facts need to be given, and analysed to come up with a conclusion. I believe the facts will lead to conservativism, ecludiator believes they will lead to liberalism.
None of that says that anyone should be muzzled. And it doesn’t actually say that it is UN-American to make ANTI-American statements. But maybe that’s too subtle of a point for you, considering your broad brush.
Why did you feel you needed to ask for an honest answer?
The ones that claim religious people are ‘brainwashed’, yes indeed.
Oh give it a rest. Must everyone always post all the usual disclaimers that ‘every statement I make is about a segment of population to which these remarks apply and not every single individual in said population’. :rolleyes:
I’m not a liberal, I am a radical, in the classic PoliSci sense of one who believes that fundamental changes to root causes are necessary and desireable. A liberal tends to believe that change is necessary and desireable so long as things remain pretty much the same.
The liberal will put a cherry atop a shit sundae, and declare it improved. I say its shit, and I say to hell with it.
And I do not agree with the liberal that facts alone will suffice. Concepts like justice are not fact based, they are morally based. The Sermon on the Mount was not a lecture, it was a sermon.
Well, apparently you think that students don’t learn both points of view and you just said you would be equally unhappy ‘if a professor was only giving the conservative point of view’ (from above) so that can only mean that you are unhappy because you think professors are giving only the liberal point of view, no?
Either you are saying that there is ‘liberal indoctrination’ or you are not. Come on, jump off the fence, now.
But you believe they happen and that there is indeed ‘liberal indoctrination’ - just that the ‘indoctrinators’ don’t go to meetings to plan their indoctrination strategy?
Huh? The facts I asked for were facts to prove that students emerge from university having been indoctrinated.
So if you accuse someone of being ‘anti-American’ you still feel that person is as much a patriot as you are, do you?
Because you’re doing a lot of dodging.
I’m sorry if I mischaracterized your position in making my point…it wasn’t intentional at all.
No hurt, no foul. Merely a clarification. I note with approval your graceful concern, and hope that I may be helpful in gently guiding you from the path of political error.
No, not at all. So when I say “a lot of Canadians are comically oblivious to the irony of their own positions,” no further specification should be needed to understand exactly to whom I’m referring.
No more interruptions, I promise. Please continue your lecture.
No. I was originally responding to these questions of yours:
I was trying to make the point that it doesn’t matter what a person thinks about either philosophy. What is “horrible” about one and “correct” about the other is totally irrelevant. You make it sound as though you think the “correctness” of a political philosophy makes it OK for it to be taught as a given. What I am saying is that it doesn’t matter because there IS no “correct” political philosophy…there is only the conclusion individuals come to when given the facts.
It’s not fence-sitting, it’s ignorance. I have no idea what anyone else’s university experience was, and neither do you. As I said, I think many professors are liberal, but whether they are trying to indoctrinate students is probably overblown.
I’m sure there are some professors who use their classrooms as platforms. But I don’t actually think they are necessarily doing it on purpose. Some people are just so sure they are right, it doesn’t occur to them to give another point of view.
Huh? When you asked for facts, it was in response to this comment of mine:
Nothing here that claims I have examples of people being indoctrinated.
I do not believe that using one’s freedom of speech is un-American, no.
I call bullshit on this. You are just mischaracterizing my statements, which then need to be clarified over & over. I would love for someone else to give an opinion on whether or not I am dodging anything. Dopers, care to weigh in on this?
You are certainly more than welcome to try! I wish you good luck in your endeavor. 
Quiddity, I call double bullshit…you asked me to be honest in your response to my FIRST post in this thread. Even if I have been dodging…which I HAVEN’T…I certainly don’t think you would have seen evidence of it within one post. So suck it up and admit you had no reason to believe I wasn’t going to be honest with you.
Unless you are using your broad brush again to paint all conservatives as dishonest? You wouldn’t do THAT, would you?
This makes no sense, even with your attempts at clarification in later posts.
Atheists, in general, have a view of humans quite the opposite of the one that you claim. Rather than having a “low view of all humans,” atheists actually tend to have a positive and optimistic conception of human capacities and abilities. That’s only natural. Lacking a theological belief system which places human goodness and morality—partially or completely—in the hands of some higher being, atheists are naturally predisposed towards a humanistic explanation of history and society, one that takes account of humans’ abilities and of their foibles.
This is quite a contrast to some Christian belief systems, which have historically focused on original sin and human depravity and predestination. Calvinism and other similar worldviews are the ones, in my opinion, that demonstrate a rather “low view of all humans.” Admittedly, post-Enlightenment Christian worldviews are generally much more humanistic and Arminian in their outlooks, but strains of original sin and human depravity, and even predestination, still carry over into some strains of modern Christianity.
I’m not even sure where you get your allegation that atheists believe that programming is a central part of university education, or that atheists believe that students and churchgoers are just brainless robots.
Sarafeena, silly, of course she only means the ones who are dishonest are the dishonest ones. (The brush is not only broad, it’s enchanted.)
I really didn’t understand the outcry about Don Imus’s comments either, since it should’ve been clear to everyone he was only referring to those players who did have nappy hair and really were whores.