Republicans

[Forty Two]

You really are fucking atrocious at reading comprehension. I never said anything about the ideology of gender studies. I was referring to your ideology. Learn to fucking read (for the 9000th time).

You wrote this: "I happen to think that theater is bullshit, and French literature isn't that far ahead of it. You are just proving the point that Hermit and Jim were making. Basically, you don't like studies that you ideologically disagree with. Theatre is fine for you, because it can't challenge your ideological world view. But theatre is no less bullshit, and probably more bullshit, than some of the "studies" degrees."

Your tiresome repetition of your nonsense allegations of dishonesty have exceeded my will to continue this discussion with you.

I've explained my position. You have claimed that even though you know nothing about these courses, you are sure that I don't object to them because of what they are about and what they teach. Instead, you think that I hold an ideological view (which you do not specify) which causes me to ideologically disagree with a course that does not have an ideology. That's your position. Since you're not a mind reader, I would suggest that I can tell you better what my viewpoint is, and if you don't believe me, that's fine. You are entitled not to.

Also, you've alleged that you find value in any course that does not teach utter falsehoods. You have no idea what they teach in gender studies, as you said, so you can't possibly know if they teach, in part, falsehoods. So you are in no position at all to opine on the topic. You did, however, express that Latin, French and Russian Literature, and Theater were worthless or useless or bullshit (some iteration thereof or equivalent), which must mean that by your test you know them to teach utter falsehoods.

That's your position, as stated by you.

[pErvinalia]

How about just explain why a course of gender studies is valuable in terms of a basic, four year, bachelor degree education?

Why should I do that? I don't know anything about these courses. As usual, your biases are showing.

Because that's what we were talking about. The value of the coursework. I am not surprised you don't know anything about the courses, yet you decide to chime in on the discussion anyway.

I don't need to know the exact specifics of what the courses teach to know that you fear this stuff as a threat to society.

So, fuck off with this "you've forgotten that we've debated" and shit memory bullshit. It's painful to talk to you, and you have the nerve to call other people dishonest? It's pathetic.

You've got a LONG rap sheet. I don't.

You don't? You don't? LOL. Man you have no self-awareness, at all.

Dude, at least once a week L'Emmy, Hermit or myself point out an instance of your dishonesty. I think you might have tried once to actually point out one of mine, and it was a nonsense case. You are the most self unaware person I have ever come across.

And your accusations of dishonesty are made up, invented - this thread shows that. You "don't believe" something I said, and therefore you accuse me of being dishonest. That's your thing.

You're not dishonest because I "don't believe" that you dislike this stuff from an intellectual rigour point of view. It's because you continually deny you say certain things, and when you are continually shown that you did you usually outright lie about it, or equivocate. You have an inherent inability to admit you can be wrong, particularly against someone who is aggressively calling you out.

Do you, or do you not, believe that "gender studies" and "communications" and/or the other disciplines I mentioned earlier are valuable and important parts of a good college education? Why? And, do you think they are more important than the list of core educational disciplines that I listed earlier.

I don't know what they teach. But unless it's outright falsehoods, then I think it has value. Whether it has as much value as course xyz depends on the context.

LOL! You don't know what they teach, but you're sure that I don't find what they teach lacking in worth and rigor!

I have to repeat that - you acknowledge that (a) you don't know ANYTHING ABOUT THESE COURSES, and (b) you don't know what they teach. Yet, you are here trying to refute my argument that these courses are of little academic value and rigor by attacking my stated reasons, suggesting that I really don't believe that they are weak courses lacking in rigor - I really just oppose them ideologically.

And, you don't know anything about the courses. You don't know anything about the courses. You don't know what they teach. LOL.

I don't need to know the specifics of what they teach to know that you fear what you have stated they teach. You think this stuff is a threat to society. That's utterly ridiculous.

And, now you make the absurd claim that "unless it's outright falsehoods, then I think it has value. Whether it has as much value as course xyz depends on the context." LOL. So, now any course that doesn't teach lies has value in the context of a good, solid, college level education. Oh, wait...but not Latin, Russian Literature, French Literature, and Theater....those were...how did you put it? Oh, yes...worthless and bullshit.

Everything has some value. I said that as a rhetorical device to show you how arbitrary your assessment was about what has "value" and what doesn't. It was also said in the context of your initial comparison of the STEM and other traditional subjects with the "studies" courses. That is, Latin etc are no more valuable when compared to STEM than "studies" courses are when compared to STEM.

[pErvinalia]

You really are fucking atrocious at reading comprehension. I never said anything about the ideology of gender studies. I was referring to your ideology. Learn to fucking read (for the 9000th time).

You wrote this: "I happen to think that theater is bullshit, and French literature isn't that far ahead of it. You are just proving the point that Hermit and Jim were making. Basically, you don't like studies that you ideologically disagree with. Theatre is fine for you, because it can't challenge your ideological world view. But theatre is no less bullshit, and probably more bullshit, than some of the "studies" degrees."

Your tiresome repetition of your nonsense allegations of dishonesty have exceeded my will to continue this discussion with you.

I've explained my position. You have claimed that even though you know nothing about these courses, you are sure that I don't object to them because of what they are about and what they teach. Instead, you think that I hold an ideological view (which you do not specify) which causes me to ideologically disagree with a course that does not have an ideology. That's your position. Since you're not a mind reader, I would suggest that I can tell you better what my viewpoint is, and if you don't believe me, that's fine. You are entitled not to.

Also, you've alleged that you find value in any course that does not teach utter falsehoods. You have no idea what they teach in gender studies, as you said, so you can't possibly know if they teach, in part, falsehoods. So you are in no position at all to opine on the topic. You did, however, express that Latin, French and Russian Literature, and Theater were worthless or useless or bullshit (some iteration thereof or equivalent), which must mean that by your test you know them to teach utter falsehoods.

That's your position, as stated by you.

This could all be summarised to "I'm never wrong". Own your own fucking words and stop trying to divert away from things you have said. If you can't handle someone challenging your views, then don't make them public in the first place.

[Forty Two]

How about just explain why a course of gender studies is valuable in terms of a basic, four year, bachelor degree education?

Why should I do that? I don't know anything about these courses. As usual, your biases are showing.

Because that's what we were talking about. The value of the coursework. I am not surprised you don't know anything about the courses, yet you decide to chime in on the discussion anyway.

I don't need to know the exact specifics of what the courses teach to know that you fear this stuff as a threat to society.

Assuming arguendo that I fear it as a threat to society, the fact still remains that it is of little educational value and non-rigorous. I think communism and nazism are threats to society, but I am very much in favor of studying those subjects in college. The discussion was about educational value, not whether one subject or another is a threat to society. Some people think nuclear physics is a threat to society. So what?

So, fuck off with this "you've forgotten that we've debated" and shit memory bullshit. It's painful to talk to you, and you have the nerve to call other people dishonest? It's pathetic.

You've got a LONG rap sheet. I don't.

You don't? You don't? LOL. Man you have no self-awareness, at all.

Dude, at least once a week L'Emmy, Hermit or myself point out an instance of your dishonesty. I think you might have tried once to actually point out one of mine, and it was a nonsense case. You are the most self unaware person I have ever come across.

I have. Your denials are bullshit. And, I'm not going down this road with you again, and again, and again. You like to accuse people of "dishonesty" to divert the topic that you find disagreeable. You don't like people talking about certain kinds of topics. So you troll and badger and you do it for the express purpose - which you've admitted - of driving them off the site.

And your accusations of dishonesty are made up, invented - this thread shows that. You "don't believe" something I said, and therefore you accuse me of being dishonest. That's your thing.

You're not dishonest because I "don't believe" that you dislike this stuff from an intellectual rigour point of view. It's because you continually deny you say certain things, and when you are continually shown that you did you usually outright lie about it, or equivocate. You have an inherent inability to admit you can be wrong, particularly against someone who is aggressively calling you out.

Once again, projection, and more irrelevant nonsense. I don't care what you think about that. The topic of conversation is the educational value of the courses and subjects we've been discussing. You are diverting it and derailing it into yet another personal fight. I'm going to try, once again, to not involve myself in that. I am not responding to any more of your bullshit that is not on topic.

Do you, or do you not, believe that "gender studies" and "communications" and/or the other disciplines I mentioned earlier are valuable and important parts of a good college education? Why? And, do you think they are more important than the list of core educational disciplines that I listed earlier.

I don't know what they teach. But unless it's outright falsehoods, then I think it has value. Whether it has as much value as course xyz depends on the context.

LOL! You don't know what they teach, but you're sure that I don't find what they teach lacking in worth and rigor!

I have to repeat that - you acknowledge that (a) you don't know ANYTHING ABOUT THESE COURSES, and (b) you don't know what they teach. Yet, you are here trying to refute my argument that these courses are of little academic value and rigor by attacking my stated reasons, suggesting that I really don't believe that they are weak courses lacking in rigor - I really just oppose them ideologically.

And, you don't know anything about the courses. You don't know anything about the courses. You don't know what they teach. LOL.

I don't need to know the specifics of what they teach to know that you fear what you have stated they teach. You think this stuff is a threat to society. That's utterly ridiculous.

Not relevant to the discussion. Even if that were true, arguendo, it does not relate to the educational value or intellectual rigor of the subjects. If you have anything to say about the topic at hand, then please do. But, to do that now, you'd have to claim to know something about the subjects and what they teach, and you've already stated more than once that you do not.

And, now you make the absurd claim that "unless it's outright falsehoods, then I think it has value. Whether it has as much value as course xyz depends on the context." LOL. So, now any course that doesn't teach lies has value in the context of a good, solid, college level education. Oh, wait...but not Latin, Russian Literature, French Literature, and Theater....those were...how did you put it? Oh, yes...worthless and bullshit.

Everything has some value. I said that as a rhetorical device to show you how arbitrary your assessment was about what has "value" and what doesn't. It was also said in the context of your initial comparison of the STEM and other traditional subjects with the "studies" courses. That is, Latin etc are no more valuable when compared to STEM than "studies" courses are when compared to STEM.

No no. You said "worthless" - or "useless" (or both) and "bullshit." LOL.

Ohhhhhh - you get to use "rhetorical devices." LOL. Got it.

And, now you're back to "arbitrary." Your nonsense never stops. Look -- my view is not arbitrary, because I explained in detail the rational basis, which was not arbitrary (random choice or personal whim). I explained why certain courses that I think highly of are valuable, and I distinguished that from the things like gender studies and communications. It is not at all "arbitrary" to say that there is more educational value in Calculus, Physics, The History of China, Astronomy, The Rise and Fall of Soviet Communism, and the Rise and Fall of Nazism, or Twentieth Century Fascism, as opposed to "the theory of gender studies." That's not arbitrary. All courses and subjects are not equal in terms of educational value and rigor.

Latin is far more valuable to a good, solid college education than "gender studies." I've illustrated exactly why, and you've chosen to ignore that.

You also make the ridiculous claim that "studies" courses are just as valuable when compared to STEM as Latin is. You've already said you have no way to know that. You don't know what "studies" courses teach - you don't know anything about them. Given that, you cannot possible weigh their value against STEM or anything else. And you have the fucking nerve - the unmitigated gall - to accuse someone else of arguing dishonestly? What a laugh.

[Forty Two]

You really are fucking atrocious at reading comprehension. I never said anything about the ideology of gender studies. I was referring to your ideology. Learn to fucking read (for the 9000th time).

You wrote this: "I happen to think that theater is bullshit, and French literature isn't that far ahead of it. You are just proving the point that Hermit and Jim were making. Basically, you don't like studies that you ideologically disagree with. Theatre is fine for you, because it can't challenge your ideological world view. But theatre is no less bullshit, and probably more bullshit, than some of the "studies" degrees."

Your tiresome repetition of your nonsense allegations of dishonesty have exceeded my will to continue this discussion with you.

I've explained my position. You have claimed that even though you know nothing about these courses, you are sure that I don't object to them because of what they are about and what they teach. Instead, you think that I hold an ideological view (which you do not specify) which causes me to ideologically disagree with a course that does not have an ideology. That's your position. Since you're not a mind reader, I would suggest that I can tell you better what my viewpoint is, and if you don't believe me, that's fine. You are entitled not to.

Also, you've alleged that you find value in any course that does not teach utter falsehoods. You have no idea what they teach in gender studies, as you said, so you can't possibly know if they teach, in part, falsehoods. So you are in no position at all to opine on the topic. You did, however, express that Latin, French and Russian Literature, and Theater were worthless or useless or bullshit (some iteration thereof or equivalent), which must mean that by your test you know them to teach utter falsehoods.

That's your position, as stated by you.

This could all be summarised to "I'm never wrong". Own your own fucking words and stop trying to divert away from things you have said. If you can't handle someone challenging your views, then don't make them public in the first place.

You haven't challenged my view here. If you think you have, you really need to go back and rethink it.

My views here involved the relative merits, educationally, of different areas of study at college. I rated things like Communications degrees, and "gender studies" very low on the worth scale (not from an income producing point of view, but from an educational value and rigor point of view). You can't possibly have challenged my view on this, because you, and I quote "don't know anything about" them and "don't know what they teach." As such, any argument you have as to their relative merits from an educational point of view is completely worthless, and not a challenge.

You did challenge "me" as a person - by calling me names, calling me a liar, repeating over and over again how dishonest you think I am, and how stupid you think I am because I don't know how to use logic or statistics, and all this tripe that you trot out over, and over and over again. You also said that you think I "fear" what these courses teach (even though you don't know what they teach - you just claim I said I "feared" them as a "threat to society" (which, of course, was not born out by the links you cited, which involved things like authoritarian communism and Postmodern philosophy - both of which I do find are detrimental to society, but also BOTH OF WHICH I FIND OF VERY GREAT VALUE TO BE TAUGHT AT UNIVERSITY, despite finding communism and postmodernism detrimental to society.

I clarified for you more than once that whether I find it a threat to society is NOT RELEVANT to the educational value or rigor, and NOT RELEVANT to whether I deem it worthwhile as a topic in college. I proved that by, time and time again, pointing out courses teaching things that I admit believing are detrimental to society, and yet supporting them as good subjects to teach and learn. Yet, you keep on and on, repeating "you fear these courses! you fear these courses!" as if that has an relevance at all to the conversation. Again, even if I did "fear" them, that is not why I find them lacking in educational value - it's their lack of educational value and lack of rigor that causes me to rate them low, and I've explained that.

Then you went ahead and started explaining that you think the various "studies" courses are of just as much value in relation to STEM as Latin is -- but, you already said that you know nothing about these studies courses and you don't know what they teach. So, unless you were lying, and you do know something about them, and you do know something about what they teach (enough to make an informed judgment), then you can't possible know or have a reasoned view as to the relative merits of the course of which you know nothing.

Then you claim that the statements that you did make - lake the one in the previous paragraph, and your declarations that things like Latin, Russian and French Literature, and such are "bullshit" and worthless/useless -- they're not really bullshit or worthless/useless because you really think everything has educational value, and you were just using a rhetorical device.

And, you, again, have the nerve to suggest someone else is not arguing honestly.

[pErvinalia]

How about just explain why a course of gender studies is valuable in terms of a basic, four year, bachelor degree education?

Why should I do that? I don't know anything about these courses. As usual, your biases are showing.

Because that's what we were talking about. The value of the coursework. I am not surprised you don't know anything about the courses, yet you decide to chime in on the discussion anyway.

I don't need to know the exact specifics of what the courses teach to know that you fear this stuff as a threat to society.

Assuming arguendo that I fear it as a threat to society, the fact still remains that it is of little educational value and non-rigorous. I think communism and nazism are threats to society, but I am very much in favor of studying those subjects in college.

You misunderstand (quelle surprise). You view cultural Marxism as a present threat. I doubt very much that you view Nazism as a present threat to our societies.

The discussion was about educational value, not whether one subject or another is a threat to society. Some people think nuclear physics is a threat to society. So what?

For the nth time, I feel that it is your ideological bias that cause you to disregard these "studies" courses as intellectually worthless. Man, you don't even know what is taught or how it is taught. You've heard the Fox News talking points, and like your hero Trump you are just regurgitating it out at the rest of us.

So you troll and badger and you do it for the express purpose - which you've admitted - of driving them off the site.

This is the lie that pins you as dishonest the most. I've debunked this bullshit so many times. You are like a politician - you are telling this lie as often as possible in the hope that it becomes accepted as fact. I've debunked it repeatedly, and you never address my debunking. You are dishonest as fuck.

And your accusations of dishonesty are made up, invented - this thread shows that. You "don't believe" something I said, and therefore you accuse me of being dishonest. That's your thing.

You're not dishonest because I "don't believe" that you dislike this stuff from an intellectual rigour point of view. It's because you continually deny you say certain things, and when you are continually shown that you did you usually outright lie about it, or equivocate. You have an inherent inability to admit you can be wrong, particularly against someone who is aggressively calling you out.

Once again, projection, and more irrelevant nonsense. I don't care what you think about that. The topic of conversation is the educational value of the courses and subjects we've been discussing. You are diverting it and derailing it into yet another personal fight. I'm going to try, once again, to not involve myself in that. I am not responding to any more of your bullshit that is not on topic.

You don't get to define the scope of the topic. Pull your fucking head in.

Do you, or do you not, believe that "gender studies" and "communications" and/or the other disciplines I mentioned earlier are valuable and important parts of a good college education? Why? And, do you think they are more important than the list of core educational disciplines that I listed earlier.

I don't know what they teach. But unless it's outright falsehoods, then I think it has value. Whether it has as much value as course xyz depends on the context.

LOL! You don't know what they teach, but you're sure that I don't find what they teach lacking in worth and rigor!

I have to repeat that - you acknowledge that (a) you don't know ANYTHING ABOUT THESE COURSES, and (b) you don't know what they teach. Yet, you are here trying to refute my argument that these courses are of little academic value and rigor by attacking my stated reasons, suggesting that I really don't believe that they are weak courses lacking in rigor - I really just oppose them ideologically.

And, you don't know anything about the courses. You don't know anything about the courses. You don't know what they teach. LOL.

I don't need to know the specifics of what they teach to know that you fear what you have stated they teach. You think this stuff is a threat to society. That's utterly ridiculous.

Not relevant to the discussion.

Yes it is. It affects your perception of things. Man, you know next to nothing about these courses. You haven't taken one, you don't know anyone who has, and you read the rwnj press.

And, now you're back to "arbitrary." Your nonsense never stops. Look -- my view is not arbitrary, because I explained in detail the rational basis, which was not arbitrary (random choice or personal whim).

Bullshit you have. You raised the points about patriarchy and whatever the other buzz terms were, because these are the things that really bother you. Not rigour. You act as if we don't read the rest of your ridiculous posts where you have conniptions over this stuff. Who the fuck are you trying to kid?

Latin is far more valuable to a good, solid college education than "gender studies." I've illustrated exactly why, and you've chosen to ignore that.

You know next to nothing about gender studies. Who the fuck are you trying to kid?

You also make the ridiculous claim that "studies" courses are just as valuable when compared to STEM as Latin is. You've already said you have no way to know that. You don't know what "studies" courses teach - you don't know anything about them. Given that, you cannot possible weigh their value against STEM or anything else. And you have the fucking nerve - the unmitigated gall - to accuse someone else of arguing dishonestly? What a laugh.

I've already told you that I'm assuming that they aren't spreading lies in these courses, so unless you have evidence to the contrary, I am going to assume they possess some value. Given Latin possesses almost fuck all value to a modern education, I can't see the "studies" courses being of much less value.

[Forty Two]

One, I do get to define the limits of what I'm talking about. You don't get to claim to have refuted my argument by addressing a different argument. As I said, it does not matter whether I "fear" these courses, and you did not in the least establish that I did. I'm not going to retype everything.

Two, you did say that you like to troll people and drive them off the site. You said it. You've been quoted before. Everyone knows it to be true. It's what you do. And, I'm not going to go back and argue about your dishonesty, because I don't care, and you've illustrated it here. You have the nerve to call someone else dishonest after this exchange? Absurd.

Three, you don't know what I fear or value, and you don't know what I "know" about these courses. You have said - explicitly - that you know NOTHING about these courses and you don't know what they teach. I accept that. But, I do know what these courses teach, as I have read required reading textbooks for multiple courses, and I've reviewed the course material and I've watched lectures. I am very well-versed in what they teach, and I know a great deal about the courses and material. You are in no position to suggest otherwise, and for your to do so is more of your "projection." You think that because you know neither Jack, nor shit about the subject that I must not either. Go talk to your therapist or psychiatrist about that, because that's your problem, not mine.

Three, "Latin possesses almost fuck all value to a modern education..." - I proved that wrong, in that I explained in detail its value to a modern education, and I linked to hard evidence that those who have studied basic Latin have better proficiency in English and other language courses. You've presented NOTHING to support your position of "almost fuck all value." You haven't even explained why you think that, and on what basis you find it to be valueless.

You are "assuming" they aren't spreading lies -- and you say "unless I have evidence to the contrary they possess some value." LOL -- These are all points that have no relation to my point. I did not accuse the courses themselves - the subject matter - as inherently "spreading lies" - so why in the world would I have to produce "evidence to the contrary?" That's your bullshit game, always - you invent some declaration and then demand that the other person present evidence to the contrary. No no, dude. If you think these courses are valuable, then produce YOUR reasons and/or evidence for believing so. Saying "nobody has presented me with evidence that they are spreading lies, so the must have some value" is not an argument, and it's not refutation of MY ARGUMENT, which is what you keep saying you've refuted.

Last point - you say "for the nth time" you "feel" that it's my ideological bias that causes me to value these courses low. I have explained this to you, and you keep on with the point. If my "ideological bias" causes me to devalue these courses, then why would I value highly courses on Communism and Postmodernism? Why would I value highly courses on Nazism and fascism? Why would I value highly courses on various other Philosophies, and even religions which I deem to be pernicious and detrimental to society?

Whatever your "feelings" on the topic - I have explained this clearly and irrefutably -- I do not reject a course of study because I oppose the material ideologically. I, in fact, LOVE courses which involve material that I oppose ideologically. I would much rather take a college course on 20th Century Communism, or Communism in the Modern Era, or Postmodernist Philosophy than one one on Minarchist Capitalism or Enlightenment Philosophy and Modernism. It is, for the last time, not my ideological preferences that cause me to devalue these majors. And, I have also asked you many times what your "feelings" were about my opposition to other subjects, like, "Communications" degrees, and yet you keep ignoring that. If it's just my ideological bias, then what ideological bias do I have against Communications degrees, or "Journalism" degrees. I have good reasons to value these low, and yet for some reason you want to repeatedly declare that I only make my arguments because I ideologically oppose gender studies.

So, that's it in sum - I'm done repeating myself. You're full of it, and that's the end of it. I'm tired of responding to you. I tried again to interact with you after having taken the hiatus and not bothering with your bullshit, but I'm going back to just discussing with other people.

I think if I limit my conversations to other people besides you, then your negative impact on the conversations will be minimized. You can post your little nonsense blurbs, but without my responses, other folks may stay in the conversation. I've noticed that when your involvement goes up, other people with more valuable and interesting insights tend to bow out, and it becomes just you and your games of derail, deflect, evade, namecall, troll, lather, rinse, repeat. That's my fault for continuing to interact with you. I'll try not make that mistake again.

[pErvinalia]

One, I do get to define the limits of what I'm talking about.

I never said you didn't. The problem is that you are trying to dictate what I discuss. I simply don't believe that rigour has anything to do with why you don't like these courses. And I have every right to say it and prosecute that argument, regardless of whether you are being a precious snowflake and can't handle it.

Two, you did say that you like to troll people and drive them off the site. You said it. You've been quoted before. Everyone knows it to be true. It's what you do. And, I'm not going to go back and argue about your dishonesty, because I don't care, and you've illustrated it here. You have the nerve to call someone else dishonest after this exchange? Absurd.

As I've said a millions times in reply to this bullshit before, that I have confessed to hounding some fuckwits off the site before, doesn't mean that every time I am aggressively debating someone that I am trying to hound them off the site. This is fucking simple logic. Something which you demonstrably struggle with.

Three, you don't know what I fear or value,

Who are you kidding?! You almost exclusively only talk on this forum about the threat of cultural marxism to liberalism. You're a one-track record.

and you don't know what I "know" about these courses. You have said - explicitly - that you know NOTHING about these courses and you don't know what they teach. I accept that. But, I do know what these courses teach, as I have read required reading textbooks for multiple courses, and I've reviewed the course material and I've watched lectures. I am very well-versed in what they teach, and I know a great deal about the courses and material.

Fucking bullshit. How come then do your problems with this stuff SO often reflect the current rwnj talking points? You may as well have a link to fox news in your profile.

Three, "Latin possesses almost fuck all value to a modern education..." - I proved that wrong,

WTF?! It's a value judgement. You can't prove value judgements right or wrong.

in that I explained in detail its value to a modern education, and I linked to hard evidence that those who have studied basic Latin have better proficiency in English and other language courses.

So what? Why is slightly higher proficiency from a probably pretty good base important? This is what you don't get. You are stuck in the past. The world today's youth are moving into is nothing like the world you and I moved out into.

You've presented NOTHING to support your position of "almost fuck all value." You haven't even explained why you think that, and on what basis you find it to be valueless.

It's a dead language. It's not used any more. You don't need to know the broader latin language to understand the roots of English words. I don't disagree that knowing more latin will mean that you will know more roots to words and therefore possess better comprehension and vocabulary. But if you are taking latin, you aren't an under-performer so any benefits are marginal in the current world where computers handle so much more for you than in years past.

You are "assuming" they aren't spreading lies -- and you say "unless I have evidence to the contrary they possess some value." LOL -- These are all points that have no relation to my point. I did not accuse the courses themselves - the subject matter - as inherently "spreading lies" - so why in the world would I have to produce "evidence to the contrary?"

Because you questioned how I could assume that these courses must possess at least some value. You thought it was ridiculous that I could assume that. I explained how I can assume that. Now you are trying to move the goalposts. More of your usual tactics.

That's your bullshit game, always - you invent some declaration and then demand that the other person present evidence to the contrary. No no, dude. If you think these courses are valuable, then produce YOUR reasons and/or evidence for believing so. Saying "nobody has presented me with evidence that they are spreading lies, so the must have some value" is not an argument, and it's not refutation of MY ARGUMENT, which is what you keep saying you've refuted.

I don't give a fuck whether you think they are spreading lies or not. It's irrelevant to me. It's only potentially relevant to you, as YOU are the one who asked me how I could assume that they present some value.

Last point - you say "for the nth time" you "feel" that it's my ideological bias that causes me to value these courses low. I have explained this to you, and you keep on with the point.

Because I simply don't believe you. You are the most dishonest person I've ever come across on the internet. You are also totally blinkered to your biases.

If my "ideological bias" causes me to devalue these courses, then why would I value highly courses on Communism and Postmodernism? Why would I value highly courses on Nazism and fascism? Why would I value highly courses on various other Philosophies, and even religions which I deem to be pernicious and detrimental to society?

I just fucking explained this. Try reading for comprehension.

And, I have also asked you many times what your "feelings" were about my opposition to other subjects, like, "Communications" degrees, and yet you keep ignoring that.

Fuck off, I addressed it a number of times. You really are the most dishonest cunt getting around.

If it's just my ideological bias, then what ideological bias do I have against Communications degrees, or "Journalism" degrees. I have good reasons to value these low, and yet for some reason you want to repeatedly declare that I only make my arguments because I ideologically oppose gender studies.

I've already fucking addressed this. How many times is it necessary to address something before you'll fucking notice it??

So, that's it in sum - I'm done repeating myself. You're full of it, and that's the end of it. I'm tired of responding to you. I tried again to interact with you after having taken the hiatus and not bothering with your bullshit, but I'm going back to just discussing with other people.

Get the colouring-in pens out...

I think if I limit my conversations to other people besides you, then your negative impact on the conversations will be minimized. You can post your little nonsense blurbs, but without my responses, other folks may stay in the conversation. I've noticed that when your involvement goes up, other people with more valuable and interesting insights tend to bow out, and it becomes just you and your games of derail, deflect, evade, namecall, troll, lather, rinse, repeat. That's my fault for continuing to interact with you. I'll try not make that mistake again.

It's ironic that you go on about "snowflakes"...

[Forty Two]

Last bit to pErvin - regarding Latin and your dumb assertion that you "can't prove value judgments right or wrong" -- look, value judgments can be arbitrary (like yours are offered, without a shred of reason or argument or evidence), or they can be like mine have been on this thread - presented with a rational basis, an argument, in favor of the value judgment. Like an opinion, they can be strong or weak. Your mere declaration, devoid of any reason or proof, is weak. Mine, which had a page full of back-up, argument, and proof - including but not limited to a study which showed that the value of Latin study was, in part, an enhanced proficiency in other subjects. Like many other disciplines, a study in latin translates or transfers to be of significant benefit to other disciplines. Latin is not merely a benefit to "learn the roots of words," and I went through many more benefits than that. I'm not going to repeat them.

Re: "snowflakes" - I don't "go on" about snowflakes. You see, this is where you show your true colors. You call me dishonest, but you then accuse me of "going on" about snowflakes. I've used that word exactly twice -- once on January 20, 2016, where I said "...you have your special snowflake hierarchy, wherein certain groups are appropriate to oppose and criticize and others aren't..." I didn't call anyone a snowflake. I was describing the "progressive stack" hierarchy of groups who are protected and who are not. I then used it again on January 29, 2016, when I addressed a discussion about a person from Atheism Plus who had posted some discussion of how uncomfortable she felt when a classmate of hers talked to her. I wrote that I was "Not sure how else anyone can be sure they aren't making this poor snowflake uncomfortable," referring to how under the theory presented by the person, it would be difficult for anyone to talk to her without knowing if they're making her uncomfortable. I referred to that non-member as a snowflake, but not anyone here. Since then, going on 21 months ago, I did not use the term "snowflake" except to refer to a political party in the Netherlands having a "snowflake's chance in hell" of winning.

Compare that with you, pErvin. Today, you called me a "precious little snowflake." On September 14, 2017, you called me a snowflake, where you said "get a colouring book, you Snowflake." On June 7, 2017, you called me a snowflake, saying "fuck you are a snowflake." On June 2, 2017, you called me a snowflake, saying "God, you are a snowflake," and in a separate post you said "have a cry, you fucking snowflake." On May 24, 2017, you called me "you poor snowflake." On April 13, 2017, you called me a snowflake again. On March 16, 2017, you said for me to "deal with it, snowflake." Also on March 16, you said "Are you feeling triggered, snowflake?" On March 15, 2017, you called Seth a snowflake. On January 26, 2017, you posted a Trump meme referring to Scot Dutchy as a snowflake, unable to take it even though he can dish it out.

So, this illustrates the absurdity and sheer bizarre projection on your part. I've never used the term to refer to a member. I have only once used it to refer to a specific person, and that was a person posting on Atheism Plus who was complaining about being spoken to by a classmate on the way to archery class. Yet, you accuse me of "going on" about snowflakes, yet you've used the term, directed at me personally, calling me that name, about 8 or 9 times. THIS YEAR! And, I haven't even used it since January, 2016 (almost 21 months ago), except to refer to someone having a "snowflake's chance in hell" of being elected.

This is the nerve you have. The gall. It's the absurdity of your posts. And, it really is why it's tiresome to sit here and simply get inundated by your constant personal attacks, and your constant projection of your own dishonesty upon others. You must know I have barely used that word, and never to insult someone here. Yet you try to post here to make others think that 42 must "go on and on" about snowflakes and calls people snowflakes all the time. Your accusation is false. You're full of it, and you're projecting.

To add to the mix, you now call me the most dishonest cunt around.

I mean, really, pErvin. This is tiresome. It's so patently obvious that you're just doing your usual trolling and namecalling, derail, and badger and fight, to try to derail conversations, disrupt discussions and drive people from the board. You do it all the time. I tried to come back and discuss topics with you, but you can't help but do what you do.

So, with the above, it should be obvious to anyone following along what you're up to, if they already weren't fully aware of it. Maybe something will be done about it, because you're as poisonous as Seth was when he was here, maybe moreso.

Cheers and good day. Go bark into the wind, pErvin.

[pErvinalia]

This is just classic 42. Equivocate about a word to try and get out of owning what you say. You have discussed the concept of snowflakes fucking heaps of times. You've gone on about adult colouring-in before, yes? You've gone on about safe spaces before, yes? You've done those multiple times, yes? You've gone on about todays kids not being adequately prepared for the real world where disagreement is common, yes? Stop being so fucking disingenuous and dishonest.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Just the latest 'pro-life' Republican politician to urge somebody to get an abortion for his own convenience.

'Rep. Tim Murphy, popular with pro-life movement, urged abortion in affair, texts suggest'

A text message sent in January to U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy by a woman with whom he had an extra-marital relationship took him to task for an anti-abortion statement posted on Facebook from his office's public account.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," Shannon Edwards, a forensic psychologist in Pittsburgh with whom the congressman admitted last month to having a relationship, wrote to Mr. Murphy on Jan. 25, in the midst of an unfounded pregnancy scare.

On Wednesday, Murphy released a statement in which he says he will not seek re-election.

A text from Mr. Murphy’s cell phone number that same day in response says, "I get what you say about my March for life messages. I've never written them. Staff does them. I read them and winced. I told staff don't write any more. I will."

The congressman has been lauded by the Family Research Council, for his stance on abortion, as well as for family values, generally. He also has been endorsed by LifePAC, which opposes abortion rights, and is a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus, an affiliation that is often cited by his office.

[pErvinalia]

Another rightist hypocrite.

[L'Emmerdeur]

'It Doesn’t Matter Why [Shooter] Did It'

The only hope for preventing mass shootings is to treat guns like any other public-health threat and build a strong body of research — but the Republican Party has seriously hamstrung any efforts to do that.

Because we can’t predict who will commit a mass shooting, our only real hope of reducing the number and deadliness of such shootings is to better understand how guns “work” at a public-health level, and finding out policies that will reduce the odds of dangerous people getting guns, or at least getting the most deadly types of guns.

This is exactly the sort of task the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be well-suited for in any other situation. After all, it has a $7 billion annual budget and its entire mandate is to study threats to Americans’ health and well-being. And the CDC did, for a while, study gun violence. That changed abruptly in 1996, when the National Rifle Association, as part of its remarkably successful decades-long effort to keep just about any meaningful national-level gun control off the table, successfully pressured congressional Republicans to strip the CDC of its gun-research funding and to effectively ban the agency from studying gun violence, or disbursing funds to researchers who want to do so.

[Scot Dutchy]

Every time I see threads like this it makes me so glad I live in Europe. It really does.

[Forty Two]

This is just classic 42. Equivocate about a word to try and get out of owning what you say. You have discussed the concept of snowflakes fucking heaps of times. You've gone on about adult colouring-in before, yes? You've gone on about safe spaces before, yes? You've done those multiple times, yes? You've gone on about todays kids not being adequately prepared for the real world where disagreement is common, yes? Stop being so fucking disingenuous and dishonest.