DC Sniper

Wow #12 in the country. You must have gone to a good University.

Wow #12 in the country. You must have gone to a good University.

I went to Georgetown my last two years of undergrad. The prof was Father James V. Schall, who primarily teaches political philosophy, using the Socratic method. The school paper once did a fake article that he died, the whole campus went into mourning. Then he emerges from the priests' dormitory, and is like "Wha, I'm DEAD?"

I'm pretty sure Elenchus is the staple diet of law and political philosophy. But I'll stop here because I'm derailing the topic now.

I'm pretty sure Elenchus is the staple diet of law and political philosophy.

I graduated in 2003, I don't remember everything. Also, the man taught several political philosophy classes, and I only took two, so I am quite sure I didn't learn everything there was to know about the subject.

Aquinas believed in anticipating your opponent's strongest arguments, and refuting them before he even made them.

Even though i suck at debates and such, mostly because of my short temper, i always try to practice this D:

I end up getting lots of people mad at me...

"Attacking the source" implies that I somehow am questioning its character without knowledge of its contents. That's like me saying "Kitteh is a filthy piece of $hit" instead of saying "Kitteh's argument is bad." You know that I didn't call you anything. It is perfectly fine to refuse to read a magazine further if you have determined from its contents that it is for elitist pricks. It is the same reason that people like me wish that MENSA should not exist -- arrogance and elitism are the founding principles of that entity's existence.

By calling it a magazine for "elitist pricks" you're attacking the source for not adhering to your standards of good wirting. I won't vouch for the rest of the magazine, but I will say that this particular piece was actually engaging, even if you already know the story that it being told. At the very least, its descriptions of the vast advances we've made in regards to arson should reinforce your views of the current state of forensic science and the of the confidence we can have in conviction rates.

Actually, a good professor can do WONDERS. That English professor taught me to love writing, and that's my life now. In his classes where I was there, there were 74 students going into finals, and 3 of them had a CHANCE at an A. I don't know about the other 2, but I earned my A. I was so proud, and my writing skills improved, and I went on the internet to practice my writing skills further. 10 years later here I am -- are you seriously going to tell me that my writing skills suck? I am not arrogant or anything, but as a professional writer that's gotten tons of good feedback, I don't need false modesty either.

Another prof, ranked #12 in the country, taught me the argumentational method of St. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic priest. I am Jewish, what the hell do I need that for? Well, Aquinas believed in anticipating your opponent's strongest arguments, and refuting them before he even made them. If you look back in this thread, I provided you with 2 good anti-death penalty arguments even as I am pro-death penalty myself. I could go on, but you hopefully get the point. If you WANT to learn you will learn a fortune. It's sleeping in class that makes education go to waste.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I am well aware of a good teacher's ability to foster the potential within their students, but I was questioning more the ability of a teacher to alter political viewpoints. While your professor was able to show you a love for writing which you may not have known that you had, the same success might not necessarily be found in convincing you of a need for socialized health care. As you said, if you want to learn, you will. If you don't, then you probably won't absorb much.

By calling it a magazine for "elitist pricks" you're attacking the source for not adhering to your standards of good wirting. I won't vouch for the rest of the magazine, but I will say that this particular piece was actually engaging, even if you already know the story that it being told. At the very least, its descriptions of the vast advances we've made in regards to arson should reinforce your views of the current state of forensic science and the of the confidence we can have in conviction rates.

I actually was pretty sure you'd say this, but I caught it too late to really alter it. Read the opening sentences of the above post: I've been running around like hell all day, then working since. Nobody can ever be fully successful at qualifying every sentence so nobody will be offended, and this is especially true if your brain isn't working on full thrusters.

The magazine is marketed towards elitist pricks, i am sure not every single person that reads it is one. I am sure not every person that watches Fox News is a Republican or a retard, though Fox News seems to cater to that segment of the population the most.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I am well aware of a good teacher's ability to foster the potential within their students, but I was questioning more the ability of a teacher to alter political viewpoints. While your professor was able to show you a love for writing which you may not have known that you had, the same success might not necessarily be found in convincing you of a need for socialized health care. As you said, if you want to learn, you will. If you don't, then you probably won't absorb much.

I have worked in healthcare before which gave me experience with the people that use healthcare, and I could make a very long and rousing speech that most of htese people are the bottom of the gutter, and don't deserve healthcare, but rather a bullet to the head. Seriously, when you work in an office and people come in for health care and the ones that aren't paying for it, (they're on Public Aid,) are invariably the ones iwth the biggest sense of entitlement and the fewest manners, you REALLY stop caring about their "rights."

Yeah, I am a Republican, but I am a person too. People from a particular segment of the population insulting a person every day for roughly 4 years, and repeatedly stealing literally everything from his office htat is not nailed down will cause that person to form negative opinions about that group of people. Those negative opinions are not "politically correct," but they are true. Pretty much all there is to it.

There are a couple issues, (socialized healthcare being one of them,) that severely piss me off, therefore I am not as competent at arguing them. If you lose your composure during one of these things, it becomes a shouting match rather than a debate. However, every person feels like this on at least a couple issues, so I am sure it's not just me. I don't really want to talk about this particular issue.

If you lose your composure during one of these things, it becomes a shouting match rather than a debate. However, every person feels like this on at least a couple issues, so I am sure it's not just me. I don't really want to talk about this particular issue.

I don't care enough to shout about anything except maybe excessive child-sheltering. If you don't let your kid experience a variety of stimuli it'll permanently affect them and that's just not fair to the child.


On everything else, I'm more amused by hypocrites than anything else. Making people shout their hypocrisy is one of my prime intentions.



I'm confused... are you a writer or a receptionist at a medical facility or what?

I don't care enough to shout about anything except maybe excessive child-sheltering. If you don't let your kid experience a variety of stimuli it'll permanently affect them and that's just not fair to the child.


On everything else, I'm more amused by hypocrites than anything else. Making people shout their hypocrisy is one of my prime intentions.

You do have some pretty weird views, though.

No, I just apply simple principles to every situation, rather than being biased by the context.