Republicans

[Hermit]

FortyTwo from the 1800's

Yabbut in 1912 pupiis were expected to give the capitals of States touching the Ohio River!

Don't laugh. This is important!

Well, if the argument was that kids are using computers too much in their process of learning, then that would make sense. The criticism today is that they haven't mastered certain material at all, not that they used different devices to learn it, and might not have a computer on them later.

I mean, for example, I use electronic devices to teach my daughter all the time. She's used it to, at the age of 3, master the alphabet - both cases - and numbers up to 20 - and do basic addition and subtraction. She also knew the planets and their relationship to the sun, and the concept of stars and asteroids and comets, and their names - and the dwarf planets vs primary planets - all by the time she turned 4 -- as well as basic geography - understanding continents and countries and capitals.

We used all sorts of technology - including LeapPads, and iPads, and the like.

I'm not in the least saying that kids today aren't doing it like they did 100 or 200 years ago. I'm saying the kids today are not LEARNING as much important information and concepts, and not learning specific subjects (like logic, math, history, and science, which are vital, irrespective of the tools used to learn it).

There is a dizzying lack of knowledge among even college graduates. Employers are sounding the alarm that graduates from college have a hard time, too often, writing coherent emails, let alone writing a letter in classic letter form.

I always feel absolutely tickled pink on the rare occasion when someone takes me seriously, but it is mortifying to be taken seriously when one attempted to make a joke.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Help me out here someone. Why is the House Energy and Commerce Committee deciding on public health spending?

It would actually be the House Energy Subcommittee on Health that would be handling this. The Energy and Commerce Committee has a very wide scope, mostly delegated to subcommittees.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, quick question, pErvin -

You accused me of opposing gender studies and the like because of ideology. What ideology is that? Please specify which ideology you believe underpins or is advanced by gender studies.

Also, you'll note that I also included studies like "communications" in the less valuable group. Is it ideology that I'm opposing there, too?

Do tell.

You yourself have specifically mentioned what aspects of what the courses allegedly teach that cause you conniptions. You don't need to ask me, just go back and read your own posts.

And the set of things you don't like isn't equivalent to the set of things you don't like because of ideological reasons. Perhaps if you learnt more set theory and less archaic languages you might understand.

You accused me of opposing gender studies and the like because of ideology What ideology is that? Please specify what ideology YOU believe underpins or is advanced by gender studies.

It's YOUR ideology that causes you to be afraid of what they teach.

My main objection to the gender studies courses and the like were, you'll recall, lack of rigor and lack of educational value. .

I recall you going on about intersectional feminism and white cis heteronormative patriarchy and the usual buzzwords that you employ on this subject.

[pErvinalia]

A large and growing part of universities today. As stated, by way of example, on the University of Cincinnati website - "Womens, Gender, and Sexuality Studies (WGSS) is one of the fastest growing academic fields in the country.

I really don't think you get how stats works. Growing fast from a miniscule base isn't equivalent to being widespread (or not niche, as Jim was pointing out).

Go fuck off. He was asking about "significance."

Number 1. Nothing in my argument had anything to do with how "significant" or "insignificant" specific courses or subjects or disciplines are. My discussion related to their value as part of a good education. JimC asked how insignificant they were.

Number 2. I never said they were or were not widespread. I'll leave it to you to make that argument and present that stats, if you're taking a position on that. I don't really care how widespread they are. I do see pretty much every university has a gender studies or women's studies program, and they also have a communications program and the like. So what?

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with their relative value as disciplines. Astrophysics is taken by only a small percentage of college students, but it's of tremendous educational value, for example.

What makes a discipline significant to you? What makes it widespread? Let's start there. Then we can discuss whether one or more disciplines meet that definition for you. To me, it's not relevant to the discussion, but if it's relevant to you, I'm happy to discuss it.

Oh yes, let's equivocate over simple words so you can spend 10 pages trying to argue that black is white.

No no - this is very simple, but you evade as usual: "What makes a discipline significant to you? What makes it widespread? Let's start there. Then we can discuss whether one or more disciplines meet that definition for you. To me, it's not relevant to the discussion, but if it's relevant to you, I'm happy to discuss it." So --- your position?

You are the one who views gender studies and SJWism as a threat to society. So it's up to you to justify your ridiculous fears. It's got nothing to do with me, as I don't think these things are widespread or a threat to anything.

[JimC]

I don't think that they are widespread or a serious threat, but they are fucking absurd...

[Forty Two]

You are the one who views gender studies and SJWism as a threat to society. So it's up to you to justify your ridiculous fears. It's got nothing to do with me, as I don't think these things are widespread or a threat to anything.

Here we were talking about gender studies and other disciplines' value as an academic pursuit, and not whether something is a "threat to society." Further, I never called it a "threat to society." I simply oppose SJWs because generally their views are self-contradictory, absurd, worthy of contempt and/or ridiculous. But again, that's a different issue.

Is gender studies related to SJWism? How? Please explain that.

I was very clear that genders studies need not be taught as advocacy. If it is, then like "advocacy" of any political position in an academic study course, I find it inappropriate and detrimental. My approach is the same for all subjects in that regard.

I don't need to justify any "fears" as I've expressed none. You're the one who finds certain subjects "insignificant" - substantiate your position.

Whether they are widespread or a threat is not relevant to a discussion of their academic value. I shouldn't have to repeat that again. Gender studies is of little worth as a college level discipline for the reasons I've stated. I did not state among those reasons either that they were a threat or that they were widespread (although from what I've seen in personal experience, they're as widespread as the average major, at least).

[Forty Two]

I don't think that they are widespread or a serious threat, but they are fucking absurd...

Well said.

[Forty Two]

Oh, quick question, pErvin -

You accused me of opposing gender studies and the like because of ideology. What ideology is that? Please specify which ideology you believe underpins or is advanced by gender studies.

Also, you'll note that I also included studies like "communications" in the less valuable group. Is it ideology that I'm opposing there, too?

Do tell.

You yourself have specifically mentioned what aspects of what the courses allegedly teach that cause you conniptions. You don't need to ask me, just go back and read your own posts.

And the set of things you don't like isn't equivalent to the set of things you don't like because of ideological reasons. Perhaps if you learnt more set theory and less archaic languages you might understand.

You accused me of opposing gender studies and the like because of ideology What ideology is that? Please specify what ideology YOU believe underpins or is advanced by gender studies.

It's YOUR ideology that causes you to be afraid of what they teach.

I'm not afraid of what they teach, I merely value it very low in terms of its academic and educational value. But, you've changed your argument here, flipping from me opposing the ideology associated with gender studies to my own ideology. You know what you did there.

My main objection to the gender studies courses and the like were, you'll recall, lack of rigor and lack of educational value. .

I recall you going on about intersectional feminism and white cis heteronormative patriarchy and the usual buzzwords that you employ on this subject.

LOL, my objection to gender studies was, you'll recall, lack of rigor and lack of educational value.

A course on intersectional feminist theory is of little educational value, and the courses are not rigorous (study two days before the final and pass, probably at least with a B). These "buzzwords" are words seriously employed in these courses. They are not words imposed from the outside to mock them. The patriarchy theory is specifically taught in this coursework.

The theoretical backbone of women’s studies is grounded in three main conjectures: that of the patriarchy, intersectional oppression, and social constructionism. Intersectional feminism is the idea that oppression doesn't "just" exist along gender lines, but racial and other lines as well, and it's the "intersection" of these different axes of oppression that create intersectional feminist theory. Knowledge, logic and reason themselves are taught as social constructs of patriarchal society.

All these areas may be interesting to delve into, but before one should be spending time on this kind of thing, I think it's important to get a firm grounding in subjects that teach core disciplines: Maths (through calculus, probability and statistics), History (including world history and western civilization, tracking human history from beginning to present day); Geography (to provide perspective on the world and its inhabitants/countries, etc.; Literature (to make one reasonably well-read); Writing and technical grammar(to make one able to communicate well in writing); Foreign Language (to broaden perspective); Sciences (basic physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy); Philosophy (some broadening of philosophical understanding, and to include logic). There are years of study in just those items. Take "gender studies" to wrap up senior year. The material is not difficult.

[pErvinalia]

You are the one who views gender studies and SJWism as a threat to society. So it's up to you to justify your ridiculous fears. It's got nothing to do with me, as I don't think these things are widespread or a threat to anything.

Here we were talking about gender studies and other disciplines' value as an academic pursuit, and not whether something is a "threat to society." Further, I never called it a "threat to society."

Alternative fact

Is gender studies related to SJWism? How? Please explain that.

Why are you asking me about things that you have said?? This is about your statements, not mine.

Whether they are widespread or a threat is not relevant to a discussion of their academic value. I shouldn't have to repeat that again. Gender studies is of little worth as a college level discipline for the reasons I've stated. I did not state among those reasons either that they were a threat or that they were widespread (although from what I've seen in personal experience, they're as widespread as the average major, at least).

That's all great and stuff, but you've forgotten that we've all debated this before and you are on record stating you view this stuff as a threat to society. Sucks to be you with your shit memory.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, quick question, pErvin -

You accused me of opposing gender studies and the like because of ideology. What ideology is that? Please specify which ideology you believe underpins or is advanced by gender studies.

Also, you'll note that I also included studies like "communications" in the less valuable group. Is it ideology that I'm opposing there, too?

Do tell.

You yourself have specifically mentioned what aspects of what the courses allegedly teach that cause you conniptions. You don't need to ask me, just go back and read your own posts.

And the set of things you don't like isn't equivalent to the set of things you don't like because of ideological reasons. Perhaps if you learnt more set theory and less archaic languages you might understand.

You accused me of opposing gender studies and the like because of ideology What ideology is that? Please specify what ideology YOU believe underpins or is advanced by gender studies.

It's YOUR ideology that causes you to be afraid of what they teach.

I'm not afraid of what they teach, I merely value it very low in terms of its academic and educational value. But, you've changed your argument here, flipping from me opposing the ideology associated with gender studies to my own ideology. You know what you did there.

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).

My main objection to the gender studies courses and the like were, you'll recall, lack of rigor and lack of educational value. .

I recall you going on about intersectional feminism and white cis heteronormative patriarchy and the usual buzzwords that you employ on this subject.

LOL, my objection to gender studies was, you'll recall, lack of rigor and lack of educational value.

Jesus Christ, stop with the dishonesty.

A course on intersectional feminist theory is of little educational value, and the courses are not rigorous (study two days before the final and pass, probably at least with a B). These "buzzwords" are words seriously employed in these courses. They are not words imposed from the outside to mock them. The patriarchy theory is specifically taught in this coursework.

The theoretical backbone of women’s studies is grounded in three main conjectures: that of the patriarchy, intersectional oppression, and social constructionism. Intersectional feminism is the idea that oppression doesn't "just" exist along gender lines, but racial and other lines as well, and it's the "intersection" of these different axes of oppression that create intersectional feminist theory. Knowledge, logic and reason themselves are taught as social constructs of patriarchal society.

And here you just prove that you were lying. You mention those very concepts again. What's with you and your inability to debate honestly??

[Forty Two]

You are the one who views gender studies and SJWism as a threat to society. So it's up to you to justify your ridiculous fears. It's got nothing to do with me, as I don't think these things are widespread or a threat to anything.

Here we were talking about gender studies and other disciplines' value as an academic pursuit, and not whether something is a "threat to society." Further, I never called it a "threat to society."

Alternative fact

Different threads, and different issues. The first link addresses postmodernism and Marxism, and the second addresses authoritarian communism.

Surely "gender studies" does not require adherence to postmodernist concepts of the rejection of reason and knowledge, etc., and surely "gender studies" is not based on communism? Is it?

But, you manage to illustrate the point I've made a couple times now on the issue of the value of certain coursework. I do find courses on Postmodernist philosophy, and Marxist Communism to be far more valuable, and very worthwhile areas of study, yet, I do not value "gender studies," Communications, and the others I mentioned, worthwhile. I've explained why already. You're refusing to acknowledge what I said, and continuing to claim that I only oppose these very worthwhile areas of study because I object to their ideologies (which you refuse to specify).

Repeat - I do find a course like "Modernism and Postmodernism" in the philosophy department of a major university to be quite a good choice for one's philosophy portion of a college education. I reject postmodernism as a philosophy, for a variety of reasons, and I find it underpins a lot of sloppy and faulty thinking, and is a dangerous foundation to lay one's moral compass on, but that's a different issue. It is still something worthwhile in becoming educated.

That's different than the value of patriarchal theory in Intersectional Feminism 101.

Maybe it isn't to you. Maybe you think it's just great. Maybe you think it's more valuable than most other courses. I don't know. You are free to hold whatever opinion you want. Only, you're not expressing one. You're not saying that you think it's valuable and explaining why. What you're doing is attacking me for NOT thinking it's valuable and ignoring my reasons by recasting them into some biased motive against a political ideology. How about just explain why a course of gender studies is valuable in terms of a basic, four year, bachelor degree education?

Is gender studies related to SJWism? How? Please explain that.

Why are you asking me about things that you have said?? This is about your statements, not mine.

You just said it. So, I'm asking you if gender studies really is related to SJWism. I want to know what YOU think. I already know what I think. I know you always want to play games with other people's views, and then not share your own (probably because you're generally unable to coherently present your own argument, and you just sit back and pot shot other people's arguments). But, I'm asking you to explain what YOU mean, and you consistently refuse.

Whether they are widespread or a threat is not relevant to a discussion of their academic value. I shouldn't have to repeat that again. Gender studies is of little worth as a college level discipline for the reasons I've stated. I did not state among those reasons either that they were a threat or that they were widespread (although from what I've seen in personal experience, they're as widespread as the average major, at least).

That's all great and stuff, but you've forgotten that we've all debated this before and you are on record stating you view this stuff as a threat to society. Sucks to be you with your shit memory.

Look - one, whether I think it's a threat to society is a different issue to its value as coursework. I fucking think Nazism and Communism are threats to society, but I think courses on Nazism and Communism are great and valuable courses to take. Whether a think a concept, ideology or political view is a threat to society is not relevant to whether I think it's valuable. I think Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto are horrible, hateful books, which are dangerous if taken seriously, but I think they are required reading for anyone who wants to understand the first half of the 20th century. I think religions can be dangers to society, but I think it's important for people to read the Bible, the Koran, as well as Buddhist. Taoist and Hindo works like the I'Ching, Baghavad Gita, and The Tao Tse Tching.

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.

This conversation is about the academic value of the fucking coursework. 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.

[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."

You flat out said that I disagree with their ideology. How do I "ideologically disagree with" studies that have no ideology? Obviously, I can't. So, I asked you what ideology you were were referring to that I disagree with and which is related to or the basis of the gender studies courses. You've yet to answer the question, but you've gone into your usual personal attack mode, to try to avoid answering it.

Also, I asked you if I also think "Communications" is not a valuable course because I oppose Communications degrees due to ideological differences. You won't answer that question either.

I have also explained many times, but you're like a dog with a bone, and you won't let go of your false accusation that I don't value gender studies academically because I disagree with gender studies courses ideologically -- I've explained several examples of courses about subject matter which I disagree with ideologically, and yet I find them quite valuable.

My main objection to the gender studies courses and the like were, you'll recall, lack of rigor and lack of educational value. .

I recall you going on about intersectional feminism and white cis heteronormative patriarchy and the usual buzzwords that you employ on this subject.

LOL, my objection to gender studies was, you'll recall, lack of rigor and lack of educational value.

Jesus Christ, stop with the dishonesty.

I have explained my position. The fact that you won't accept it doesn't make it dishonest. You accuse me of not liking it because I disagree with its ideology. No, that's not it. I've explained why. But, your posts in this regard keep you from answering any questions and actually participating in the discussion.

The discussion was about the value of coursework to an education. What are your thoughts on that? Is gender studies valuable? How so? What's your argument?

A course on intersectional feminist theory is of little educational value, and the courses are not rigorous (study two days before the final and pass, probably at least with a B). These "buzzwords" are words seriously employed in these courses. They are not words imposed from the outside to mock them. The patriarchy theory is specifically taught in this coursework.

The theoretical backbone of women’s studies is grounded in three main conjectures: that of the patriarchy, intersectional oppression, and social constructionism. Intersectional feminism is the idea that oppression doesn't "just" exist along gender lines, but racial and other lines as well, and it's the "intersection" of these different axes of oppression that create intersectional feminist theory. Knowledge, logic and reason themselves are taught as social constructs of patriarchal society.

And here you just prove that you were lying. You mention those very concepts again. What's with you and your inability to debate honestly??

I'm explaining why its of little value educationally, and lacks rigor. The theories of women's and gender studies programs are not particularly demanding concepts. That's the rigor part. Explaining how little substance there is to them is part of the analysis.

It's clear you're just baiting and badgering again, as is your habit. You aren't participating in the discussion. Present an argument that isn't an attack on me, or an accusation that my reasons are different than what I'm telling you they are. Until you do, I'm done with you and I've said what I've said. I really wish JimC and others had stayed in the discussion. Instead, you did your usual job of shutting down a perfectly good conversation. Good show.

[pErvinalia]

You are the one who views gender studies and SJWism as a threat to society. So it's up to you to justify your ridiculous fears. It's got nothing to do with me, as I don't think these things are widespread or a threat to anything.

Here we were talking about gender studies and other disciplines' value as an academic pursuit, and not whether something is a "threat to society." Further, I never called it a "threat to society."

Alternative fact

Different threads, and different issues. The first link addresses postmodernism and Marxism, and the second addresses authoritarian communism.

Surely "gender studies" does not require adherence to postmodernist concepts of the rejection of reason and knowledge, etc., and surely "gender studies" is not based on communism? Is it?

What the fuck is wrong with you? YOU described gender studies as adhering to post-modernism. YOU describe all this stuff as cultural Marxism (whose goal is ultimately communism, allegedly).

You're refusing to acknowledge what I said, and continuing to claim that I only oppose these very worthwhile areas of study because I object to their ideologies (which you refuse to specify).

I acknowledge you said it. I just refuse to believe it given your history on this subject. And I don't have to specify their ideology, as I was talking about YOUR ideology.

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.

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.

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.

[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."

You flat out said that I disagree with their ideology.

Oh my God, you need remedial reading. "YOUR ideological world view".

How do I "ideologically disagree with" studies that have no ideology?

How can I ideologically disagree with the death penalty when the death penalty isn't an ideology?

Obviously, I can't.

Obviously you can.

Not to mention that you DO in fact view this stuff as an ideology. The ideology of cultural Marxism.

Also, I asked you if I also think "Communications" is not a valuable course because I oppose Communications degrees due to ideological differences. You won't answer that question either.

It's got nothing to do with what you said. Stop trying to divert from what YOU said.

A course on intersectional feminist theory is of little educational value, and the courses are not rigorous (study two days before the final and pass, probably at least with a B). These "buzzwords" are words seriously employed in these courses. They are not words imposed from the outside to mock them. The patriarchy theory is specifically taught in this coursework.

The theoretical backbone of women’s studies is grounded in three main conjectures: that of the patriarchy, intersectional oppression, and social constructionism. Intersectional feminism is the idea that oppression doesn't "just" exist along gender lines, but racial and other lines as well, and it's the "intersection" of these different axes of oppression that create intersectional feminist theory. Knowledge, logic and reason themselves are taught as social constructs of patriarchal society.

And here you just prove that you were lying. You mention those very concepts again. What's with you and your inability to debate honestly??

I'm explaining why its of little value educationally, and lacks rigor. The theories of women's and gender studies programs are not particularly demanding concepts. That's the rigor part. Explaining how little substance there is to them is part of the analysis.

It's clear you're just baiting and badgering again, as is your habit. You aren't participating in the discussion. Present an argument that isn't an attack on me, or an accusation that my reasons are different than what I'm telling you they are. Until you do, I'm done with you and I've said what I've said. I really wish JimC and others had stayed in the discussion. Instead, you did your usual job of shutting down a perfectly good conversation. Good show.

Bullshit. Saying "intersectional feminism" and "patriarchy", isn't saying a single thing about rigour. Unless your are engaging in a begging the question fallacy, which is entirely possible as you deal almost solely in logical fallacies.

[Forty Two]

You are the one who views gender studies and SJWism as a threat to society. So it's up to you to justify your ridiculous fears. It's got nothing to do with me, as I don't think these things are widespread or a threat to anything.

Here we were talking about gender studies and other disciplines' value as an academic pursuit, and not whether something is a "threat to society." Further, I never called it a "threat to society."

Alternative fact

Different threads, and different issues. The first link addresses postmodernism and Marxism, and the second addresses authoritarian communism.

Surely "gender studies" does not require adherence to postmodernist concepts of the rejection of reason and knowledge, etc., and surely "gender studies" is not based on communism? Is it?

What the fuck is wrong with you? YOU described gender studies as adhering to post-modernism. YOU describe all this stuff as cultural Marxism (whose goal is ultimately communism).

I'm asking what you think.

I do not describe "all this stuff as cultural Marxism" -- that's someone else. And the links you provided do not have me describing gender studies as "adhering to postmodernism." You're overreaching.

And, it doesn't matter what I describe gender studies as adhering to. Postmodernism adheres to Postmodernism, but I think a course in Postmodernism has great value. Gender studies and communications, etc., lack value for other reasons, unrelated to any philosophical underpinnings that they adhere to.

Now, once again - for a final time - what do YOU think pErvin? Does gender studies require an adherence to postmodernism? What ideologies do you think are part and parcel of gender studies? Then I can let you know if I oppose them, and if those ideologies impact my view of the value of the course work.

You're refusing to acknowledge what I said, and continuing to claim that I only oppose these very worthwhile areas of study because I object to their ideologies (which you refuse to specify).

I acknowledge you said it. I just refuse to believe it given your history on this subject. And I don't have to specify their ideology, as I was talking about YOUR ideology.

You were also talking about the ideology of the courses I opposed. You said I "disagreed ideologically" with the course. If that's the case, then the course must have an ideology I disagree with, no? How can I have an ideological disagreement if what I disagree with doesn't have an ideology?

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.

MY biases are showing? LOL. Go jump in a lake.
'

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.

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.

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.

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.

Latin, Russian Literature, French Literature, and Theater -- outright falsehoods!