 |
 |
HOZZÁSZÓLÁSOK
|
| • Beszéljünk róla! Bármiről kötetlenül, nincs on és off téma! |
Hozzászóláshoz kérjük lépj be!
moderálási alapelvek |
|
| Deansdale |
2008.05.22. 22:34 [#947] |
Szánalmas amit csinálsz.
Fölényeskedsz, kioktatsz, terelsz, vetítesz, sértegetsz, satöbbi.
Közben egy miligramm tényt vagy gondolatot nem közölsz.
K*rvanagy vitafórum lenne, ha mindenki folyamatosan csak annyit mondana: ezt már leírták máshol, keresd meg.
Pfff. |
| | Előzmény: [#946 | Agi53 | 2008.05.22. 22:22] |
|
|
|
|
| pankhurst |
2008.05.22. 22:19 [#945] |
pozitív diszkrimináció mint a tudományos kutatás szolgája:
They do not say that universities and colleges are right to discriminate in favor of people who have been discriminated against in the past, and that this is more important than upholding the truth. They say that preferential treatment is in the service of the truth because teaching and research are improved by new voices and new approaches; that what is in the jargon “underrepresented groups” enrich education by providing new perspectives; that “diversity” is good and the achievements of “dead white European males” are suspect. But they cannot possibly believe what they say. For they seek new voices, approaches, and perspectives, they are interested in underrepresented groups, and they want diversity only if it conforms to their political ideal. Whoever heard of the preferential treatment of a fundamentalist Protestant, a conservative Catholic, an anti-feminist, an opponent of homosexuality, a believer in the superiority of Western civilization, a libertarian, or someone who wants to conduct research into genetic racial differences? What advocate of diversity or multiculturalism would want to treat preferentially defenders of such enduring traditions as the Indian caste system, bull fighting, or the Moslem attitude to women? The much vaunted openness of these professors is nothing but propaganda that enables them to discriminate in favor of groups whose members they expect to be their political allies and against groups whose members might disagree with their political ideal
konklúzió:
The sad picture I have painted of North American higher education naturally prompts the question of what can be done about it. The answer is that professors should fulfill their professional obligation; uphold the truth through teaching and research; adopt policies that strengthen, and resist those that weaken, teaching and research. If political convictions compel some professors to work for social transformation, they should do so after they have fulfilled their professional obligation. If they cannot do that, they should resign their position and become political activists. But they should not take the money for doing their job, falsely claim to be doing it, while undermining the conditions in which the job can be done by others.
|
| |
|
|
| pankhurst |
2008.05.22. 22:18 [#944] |
John Kekes: The professoriate and the truth
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={3A503A78-E47B-475F-ABFD-7EBF00A0B249}
nem lehet mindenben egyetérteni vele, ebben az előadásban pl. a relativizmussal kapcsolatos rész a leggyengébb de egy-két részlet
TOLERANCIA:
What makes this coercive moralizing even worse is the hypocritical double-talk by which it is presented. For the stifling of opinions is said to be required by toleration. Its defenders advocate toleration of discrimination in favor of minorities and women (but not against them); of obscenity that offends religious believers and patriots (but not African-Americans and Jews); of unions' spending large sums in support of political causes (but not corporations' doing the same); of pot smoking (but not cigarette smoking); of abortion (but not capital punishment); of the public lies of Clinton (but not of Nixon); of hate speech against fundamentalists (but not homosexuals); of sex education in elementary schools (but not prayer); of jobs open only to union members (but not private clubs open only to males); of lies about American imperialism (but not the Holocaust); of sacrilegious of language (but not of language that uses "he" to refer to all human beings); of scientific research into just about anything (except racial differences in intelligence); and so on and on. We are awash in this ocean of hypocrisy, lies, and falsifications
|
| |
|
|
| pankhurst |
2008.05.22. 22:16 [#943] |
Reliable birth control; more freedom at work; better vacuums and washing machines - all played their part in making women's lives easier."
Amíg úgy érvelünk, hogy a mosógép, porszívó, minden labour-saving device a NŐKNEK szól, addig alapjaiban sértjük az egyenjogúság alapelvét. Ilyen hozzáállással létrejött állapotból NEM lehet a feminizmus létjogosultságát vitatni.
Ezt csak most olvasom. Hol _érvel úgy_, hogy csak nőknek szól? ebbe a kontextusba illesztve mégis mit írjon? Elvégre nőkről beszél. Továbbá ilyen hozzáállásból miért ne lehetne a feminizmus létjogosultságát vitatni? Ez a feminista követelések mögötti egyenlőségkoncepció helyességét implikálja.
Inkább nem is írok szavakat:))))
|
| |
|
|
| maestro |
2008.05.22. 21:20 [#939] |
| Honnan? Ha kiderül, hogy kakukkfióka van a fészekben, a nőnek elemi érdeke megtalálni az igazi apát, hiszen ő fogja majd eltartani a gyerekét. Megnevezi, megvizsgálják, bebizonyosodik - és máris megtudja a felesége is, hiszen rá is tartozik. |
| |
| maestro |
2008.05.22. 21:19 [#938] |
| Na látod, én férfiként ugyanezt mondom. Szó szerint a te szavaiddal: "kurvára nem szeretném, ha az én általam összehozott vagyonba egy vadidegen kölyök szépen beleülne, lásd: közös vagyon, ill. vagyonmegosztás, öröklési jog." És ha ez kideríthető, miért ne derüljön ki? |
| |
|
|
|
|
SZOC&POL 
