It takes an intellectual to be deeply stupid.
Posted on 06/17/2004 3:14:02 PM PDT by rhema
"I remain flaggergasted [sic] that a professor at a major university could advocate absolutism as you did recently. . . . If there is anything that marks an uneducated and narrow minded person, thinking in absolutes is that mark."
So began an e-mail from an erudite fan. Fourteen years of op-ed writing have taught me that insults have their origins in the pricked conscience. This particular insult has become near universal. Soros Inc., the new financial and philosophical liberal epicenter, must have issued a talking point: "Just call them stupid." Given their antiwar stance, the more creative "Your mother wears Army boots," could have been reincarnated. Perhaps liberal mothers with their pervasive Army boots were conflicted by it.
This particular insult is loaded with presumptuousness: all professors should be leftists. Ensconcing their own in our institutions of higher learning has given the left's "Conservative are stupid" theory a self-created syllogism. Professors are smart. Professors are leftists. Ergo, leftists are smart. If the logic seems contrived, you must be conservative, and, ergo, stupid. Still, one of the givens is true: professors are predominantly leftists.
Only Hollywood has more socialists. Leftists own higher ed. At the University of Colorado, 94% of the liberal arts faculty are registered Democrats. Of the 85 English profs, 0 are registered Republicans. Among the faculty in Duke University's history department, there are 32 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans. Literature was 11 to 0, sociology, 9 to 0, and English 18 to 1. The one in English must be the resident grammarian, another absolutist.
Prof. Robert Brandon, chairman of Duke's philosophy department, explained the lack of political diversity, "We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire. Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican Party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia." Mill's "illogical" work has been called nothing more than "intricate sophistry." But, I trust my fellow Cretins caught that Republicans are in power because so many Americans' knuckles drag.
Let's apply some liberal logic, employing their company-they- have-keep approach as a proxy for political views or intelligence or whatever they want. Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Mussolini, Norman Mailer, Noam Chomsky, Jerry Rubin, and Abbie Hoffman have all found their greatest support at universities. During his rise to power, Hitler found strong support on campuses and managed to induct PhDs into his service. Ah, the stuff of intellectualism. William Buckley, Clarence Thomas, George Will, Milton Friedman, and Margaret Thatcher find it tough to set a foot on a campus without a protest. Ergo, I'm "flaggergasted!"
< snip >
Liberals and intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, confuse the simplicity of resolve and moral absolutes with vacuity. Even Condi Rice, a former Stanford academic, confesses she had to come around to the absolutes and steadfastness of Mr. Bush. She noted Mr. Bush's singular focus on right and wrong and "on this issue of universal values and freedom. I found myself seeing the value of that." Glory be! An academic acknowledges absolutes. What a moron!
Absolutes are not the result of intellectual laxity, a lack of education, or stupidity. Absolutists acknowledge human nature. They also study nonrevisionist history, determined not to repeat its errors and debacles. We predict its victories can repeat, with fairly good statistical accuracy. If that's stupidity, hand me the dunce cap. I confess my intellectual flaws and wear the badge of an imbecilic absolutist with pride.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
"Are conservatives dumb? "
No.
I'm pretty sure that 2 + 2 = 4.
In fact, I'm absolutely sure that is so.
Does this mean I'm dumb?
A great line!
Or, Professors are students who failed to get a job. People who fail to find a job in the market place hate Capitolism. Ergo, Professors are failures who have a chip on their shoulder againsts capitolism.
Yes.
They're the enemies of freedom.
I loved this comment the first time I read it. The argument runs - we hire only smart people, which is why they're all Democrats. And the measure for smartness? Why, whether they're Democrats or not!
Logic this circular runs full-speed right up its own butt.
The key word here is available. The best and smartest people are not always (and I would go so far as to say never) available to academia. The best and smartest have gone into private enterprise to either make their fortune or find work much more enlightening and personally enriching than that which could be found in a university professorship.
To put it in other words, universities hire liberals 'cause that's the best they can get.
Well, when Mill said it, "conservative" meant royalist, statist, rejecting the values of the French/American revolutions... sounds more like the neo-liberals.
If professors weren't tenured, we would have a better idea if they were actually "worth" employing as teachers. If they really were as smart as they claim, why would they need a safety net?
Aren't we a nation of dumbies?!
It takes an intellectual to be deeply stupid.
I've had enough experience with college professors to be able to say that they do not, in fact, always higher the smartest people.
One thing for certain, liberal are wrong. :^)
ABSOLUTIST!!!
I'd be bladdergasted, too.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate.
If we follow the rules of logic (I know, that's a stretch for most liberals, but let's pretend thay can follow along), a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time.
With that thought in mind, let's look at the premise argued by this pompous moron:
There are no absolutes.
If you still don't see the logical problem with that statement, let me paraphrase a bit:
There are ABSOLUTELY
no absolutes.
For the liberals in the audience who still don't get it, the statement declaring the universal absence of absolutes is, itself, an absolute!
If the statement is true, then it denies its own existence. Therefore, since we are all looking at the statement (i.e., it exists) the statement MUST be false.
If the statement is false, then its opposite MUST be true: There ARE absolutes!
Sorry, Professor Dumba$$ - Here's your sign...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.