Did anyone in here go to a college that had professors who taught facts, and not their political opinions?
I went to a seminar about Cluster Bombs for extra credit for my Geography class, and i was FURIOUS with the visiting Oxford graduate presenter. The entire presentation, he would say a few facts about cluster bombs, then throw in some pictures of innocent children who had lost their arms, hands, feet, eyes, and/or LIVES.
Needless to say, my "extra credit" paper exceeded the Cluster Bomb topic. At the end, I wrote:
"To be honest, I was impressed with the facts the presenter knew about cluster bombs. It was a very interesting presentation and I"m very glad I attended. I hear about cluster bombs on a regular basis and never knew what they were. But one thing I wasn"t impressed with was the way the presenter portrayed cluster bombs. He showed pictures of children who had encountered cluster bombs, and took a very liberal standpoint on the issue. Rather than just displaying the facts, and saying there were a lot of civilian casualties, the majority of his presentation personalized the victims. I don"t think that was the right way to go about presenting the issue. It"s one thing to educate people about the issues surrounding something as controversial as the cluster bomb: it"s another thing to take a standpoint and push your opinion into uneducated students faces.. I didn"t go to the session to be preached to: I went there to learn."[:@]
First I will say that I think that the majority of people teaching are more liberal than not. That being said, how does the issue of someone showing the "bad" things about cluster bombs make them a liberal?
__________________
Caution - Some posts may contain sarcasim
Not me man, most of my profs are as commie as they come. Thankfully, the professors for my major are actually good about teaching facts and not their opinions.
Why would telling or personalizing the effects cluster bombs have on individuals make that professor a liberal? Don't conservatives have thoughts and feelings too? In my opinion any conservative professor teaching his own philosophies is just as guilty as a liberal professor doing the same. I suppose the difference is hearing what you want to hear.
In my opinion any conservative professor teaching his own philosophies is just as guilty as a liberal professor doing the same
And you're right Cougar. But in today's colleges, probably 90% of the professors are liberal and spew liberal fugpucky to the sheeple.
It gets old...I can tell you specific teachers I've had who are liberal, and can name probably, one or two who might actually be moderate or conservative.
Conservative and college don't go in the same sentence, however, liberal and college fit perfectly together.
And another thing...the speaker might have been trying to point out that the US did something wrong in the bombings...or that cluster bombs should be illegal. Of course he would be insane to flat out say that. But that's why colleges make young minds so indoctrinated with liberalism. They make people think that it's the way to go, and they slightly and slowly make you think a certain way. Til before you know it you're too far gone to change it. If professors flat out said what they believed, the system of colleges would not be effective. Because we all know, that put in plain English, liberalism is absurd. Shoot, plain English...we'll throw a "plain Spanish" in their too for our buddies who are flooding the country.
More then likely, it was probably slanted toward a liberal viewpoint. Perhaps a conservative speaker would've showed dead terrorists or bad guys instead?
Dang...I reread the post and it seemed kinda "rant-like." Didn't mean for it to be...but it is late, and it is Easter. Yall have a good one, I'll be back on to duke it out later. Night.
__________________
πνεύμα γ*μισα
"Error never shows itself in its naked reality in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself."
-Irenaeus of Lyon
the speaker might have been trying to point out that the US did something wrong in the bombings...or that cluster bombs should be illegal.
Thats exactly what the speaker was doing. Rather than just saying facts about cluster bombs, he kept personalizing the victims, and saying how bad cluster bombs were. He was one of those anti-war (and he didn't say it outright, but anti-bush as well) preachers.
The entire presentation was based around the fact that the United States goes to war and uses cluster bombs, blah blah blah.
It would be different if he just said facts about cluster bombs, and educated the audience. But his presentation spiraled into an anti-war debate.
Since we were'nt there we can't be objective, and can only speculate. But it sounds like to me that what Vee-9 is upset about is that they were not being objective. That there was a deeper message which was being taught. That this lecture was not about cluster bombs... but was probably anti-war (maybe even Bush) propaganda. And he was upset at that, rightly so... they were being decptive as to their motives.
Vee... were the pictures of victims, victims of our wars? Maybe even recent ones like Iraq?
What was the title of the lecture?
Should it have been perhaps "The Case Against Cluster Bombs" or some such thing?
Vee, you sound like a passionate person. While you are in college, you might want take the opportunity to get involved in debate. It would be a good way to learn how to formulate your thoughts, and to win the war of ideas. It would be a valuable skill to possess. Remember, when debating, people are not the enemy. Ideas and philosophies are.
Good luck!
__________________
AKA Dave Lingner ChristianOutdoorsman.com Equipping men for the Ultimate Destination[/size]
Liberal colleges
