USC professors blog, dangerous ground? (Page 3)

{checking calendar}

Is today Friday?

I enjoyed her witty blog. Funny, intelligent, reasoned stuff. No wonder Tyrant's knickers are in a knot!

http://www.dianablaine.com/ for those of you who would like to make up your own mind about her writings. And she has nudie pics too!

Wait a minute,,,,,, are we agreeing on something,,,,, yep, we sure are.

Well said Jim!

Tyrant, you refer to her blog as "dangerous ground." I'd say that is a clear indication that your knickers are in a knot. I'm not attacking you for having your knickers in a knot, just making the obvious observation that they are in a knot. I think it's a fair assumption to make that you wouldn't have posted this "dangerous ground" thread had you not had more than a casual interest in the topic.

ASA, yes, I do see reasoning in her writing. Maybe you don't like her conclusions so you discount her reasoning? As for her allegations of having inside information on a rape case, it is entirely possible that she does, in fact, have this information. She's not an attorney making a legal case. She's a person stating her personal views. I see no problem with this at all.

Though I understand her reasoning and passions regarding the Georgia Tech lawsuit, I don't agree with her conclusions. I think that the Student Code in question has the effect of squelching free speech. In principal, this is anti-American.  As a practical matter, it allows hateful parties to stay under the radar. I want them on the radar. For example, the Republican Party's gay-hate values. It's important that the Georgia Tech students be exposed to the College Republican gay-hate speech so that they can draw their own conclusions about the Republican Party values.  Squelching their party values in the name of tolerance only puts a false spin on who they are and prevents students from assessing whether their values are truly in line with the Republican Party values.

Chucky, I would have no problem with her teaching my kids (if I had them). I like a teacher who challenges conventional thinking.

The way I read it, she didn't make generalizations about all Christians. She made specific reference to one "Christian," and made a statement about that portion of the Christian population that bastardizes scripture for personal, political or monetary gain.

Nowhere that I saw did she ever say "all Christians" or "every Christian." *That* would be generalizing. 

Doesn't this last 72 hrs or so shine almost too bright a light on the North American political culture...A wingnut on the far left, makes some brash statements about a wingnut on the far right, who had previously made some brash statements, and everybody has to draw a line in the sand, and say 'see, that's what makes your side so wrong'...clearly no 'democrat' would be a proponent of irresponsibly making declarations of fact, and chiding all who questioned it by saying 'you just don't get it'...The people on the left has been admonishing this behaviour forever...and clearly the people on the right would not, as much as they may despise the act, encourage outright hatred, based on sexual preference, colour of skin, etc.  Even the staunchest christian is supposed to believe to love thy brother...and last I checked, the US is doing their damnedest to eliminate religious oligarchies throughout the world, so they certainly can't make a case that IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, all those who don't believe in their doctrine should be eliminated.   Ultimately, while right and left disagree on how to achieve the solution to many issues, they basically just want to do what they do, and have everybody get along...wouldn't it be better if the 90% or so of us, who would NEVER do either of the two things, just admit, we don't want either one of these two clowns on our respective teams at all, and stop using them as bellweathers for our cause, as they both ultimately do more harm to any argument, than good, as both are so...out there...

I still, however believe in the inalienable right of teachers to do whatever necessary, to expand the minds of their students, but for the students sake, not their own...it almost seems as though the good professor doth protest too much, for as much vitriol spat at the 'male dominated heirarchy' of the USC football team (soon to be SMU'd by the NCAA, by the way...couldn't win it honestly could ya), she certainly had a whole lot of her blog photos taken on game day...seems like she would be staying far away from the stadium on Saturdays, had she really been this PO'd at the system...

just sayin'

d

Perhaps you should have a look at your thread title:

USC professors blog, dangerous ground?

snort>

You didn't like my opinion that I thought her writings were (among other things) reasoned. This seemed to  set you off and you demanded that I support my reasoning for calling her writing "reasoned."  Instead of ignoring your ridiculous request, I turned your question on its head. If you don't like her conclusions, maybe you're just finding fault with her reasoning? Is that really more to the heart of the matter - rather than whether you are satisfied with my reasoning about my opinions on her reasoning? Frankly, I can't imagine why you think I need to defend my opinion about her writings - other than you just want to argue.

So, my reply was me turning your question on it's head and reflecting it back at you.  If you don't like what she says, why not just lay it out there. Attack what she has to say, rather than attacking my opinion about her writings as a sideways entry into venting about her opinions. Instead, your reply seemed argumentative to me.

As for her opinion as to the guilt of the alleged rapist, I think she made her case for why she believes he's guilty. You don't. So what?

You know, some people think Rush Limbaugh is a great patriot. I think he is the worst kind of idiot. However, if someone were to say "Rush Limbaugh's insights are so wonderful" I wouldn't jump on that person and demand that they support their opinion about Rush. "How can you say that? Support your opinion!" That would just be argumentative and what's the point? People are allowed to be sympathetic to that idiot if they want to be. 

Likewise, if I read this Professors logs and find myself laughing, then I'm going to say she's witty. I don't expect you to agree that she's witty but I don't expect someone to demand that I support my POV that she's witty. I'm entitled to my opinion without someone replying "Witty? Oh, really Renee, witty? I thought her account of her cheese factory tour to be dull and dry. Explain yourself." Unless, of course, they just wanted to be argumentative.

You asked, I'm telling you. I thought you were just being argumentative. I still like you but, in this case, I didn't like your reply to me to be perfectly candid. 

As for not replying to you within 24 hours, I can't even muster a sincere "I'm sorry" because I'm not. I thought this discussion about Free Speech had devolved into valueless argumentation about whether I had sufficiently defended my opinion about the quality of the Professor's blog, so I stayed out of the thread for a few days and forgot about it,