It is an interesting dynamic when higher education becomes a front for political mind shaping. The media then does their part to reinforce those ideas. The media now is watering the seed that our colleges and universities have set. Colleges over priced and too many professors are working off of grants. These grants usually come from the Federal Government in which they are rewarded by finding results that supports the narrative of the political donor class. those donors are the ones that provide grants to professors and universities.
We are supposed to be taught critical thinking. However, when it comes to areas that the Progressives feels like they have already won, then they just demean the messenger versus having a thoughtful and respectful debate. Do you think it is possible to have a debate on man-made climate change in the colleges and Universities without one side of the argument being ridiculed? Is it possible to have a rigorous debate on gay marriage or gay rights? What about women’s healthcare and specifically about regulating abortions? All of these areas are liberal sacred cows and critical thinking need not show up. If you do, you can be assured of an angry mob mentality that will be validated by the class moderator (Professor).
Where professors determine that they want to provide opposing views, they will challenge a belief system inviting a volunteer. The Professor already knows the three or four arguments that will likely come up and attack them on their beliefs. What is not tolerated is asking the Professor to substantiate their belief and explain the holes that exist in their world view. My point is it is easier to force someone into a defense and make them try and prove the opposite and do so in less than a minute.
Way to easy for a professor to not address a good counter argument, but instead starts to throw spaghetti against a wall to see what sticks. By demeaning the minority view, it conditions the observers into not wanting to disagree and be put of the position to have to defend.
I am not going to address specifically climate change pro or con. My point is that I rarely hear debate on the science of whether man is directly responsible for the climate warming and whether there is anything that can be done about it. The 97% agree is the their is a man-made reason for climate change is a distortion at best. The Wall Street Journal ran an article exposing the origin of the 97% agree. The truth is that of those surveyed only 3% gave an opinion. Of the 3% that gave an opinion, the response was to two questions.
First question in the Earth Warming. The second question is man in part responsible. You can get most people to agree that we are trending warmer and that man has some involvement, but not the primary driver of the earth warming as is the Narrative from the Climate Change Alarmist. The reason they want to sound the alarm is because our country uses crisis for radical change. As Rahm Emanuel (former Obama Chief of Staff) informed that we should never let a crisis be wasted. So the seed of needing to address climate change as more important than defeating terrorist becomes critical. The Progressives are very weak on security and projecting our interest around the globe. They want to make the biggest threat a domestic threat. That is why we ignore China who will offset any of our gains we would make..
The pernicious agenda is too drive down our ability to produce to reduce our carbon footprint. This is in spite of whether carbon in the atmosphere has any direct correlation to the earth warming. There are historical examples of warming that occurred with no spike in carbon in the atmosphere.
Is it even possible to have a conversation on gay issues without being deemed homophobic? I do not think so. I am sympathetic to anyone who is bullied by anyone. All I want equal treatment for everyone. That is why I believe my argument is sound in that professors should not bully minority views. It is okay to disagree on ideas and beliefs without demeaning the individual. How the argument gets framed means everything. The bully tactic is to say since you believe this, then automatically you believe that. For example, since you are for gay rights you are for gay marriage. the definition of marriage has a civil context and a religious context. I believe from a legal standpoint I am supportive. From a religious one, the culture should not taint the church. Cultures change, but the truth should be timeless. If you are not part of the church, then you should have zero input into what the church does. You cannot be taken seriously when you are coming from a place of ignorance.
The third conversation that cannot happen is abortion. Any conversation of changing Roe V Wade or defunding Planned parenthood, one gets attacked for hating woman.
All of these arguments cannot be had in civil manor without the minority view being treated as vile and unenlightened.
So if our Higher Education system is teaching only specific type of critical thinking then we are creating mind controlled robots. It is like creating an Android that does not factor in all of the facts. They would be programmed to ignore facts that come from specific sources to come to validate the world view they wee programmed for.
Kind of like when Hillary Clinton was asked about her emails in a town hall meeting prior to the Iowa Caucus, she said that republicans were going to attack her, but she gave over her emails. She gave them over when the FBI demanded them. She also has 22 emails that the State Department will not release because they are at a level above Top Secret. This is the Secretary of State conducting business that put people and processes in the field at risk, now thinking she is qualified to be Commander and Chief. Not the mind conditioned constituency listened to the non-answer and agreed with everything she said regardless of the facts that are out from all news sources.
Hillary has acted in a way that is so negligent that it should automatically disqualify her from any office, much less the Presidency. The progressives says she is strong on womens’s issues. Bill Clinton says she is a change maker. She makes change in everything she touches. My take on that is that change and coin are synonyms and that really what he meant is that who ever gave her coin, then she changed her opinion. Example is that the Clinton Foundation took big money from Saudi Arabia and Hillary is yet to speak out against the most oppressive regime to woman on the planet.
This does not mean that we are not subject to our world view being shaped by our affiliations. My views have pushed more conservative as I have participated in my church. My church that serves in our City Mission feeding the homeless and needy. Our church that is against teen pregnancy, but races to help those teens that have had a child out of wedlock. It is possible to aspire to a higher bar and run alongside to aid and assist those that fall below it. I think we can look up and reach back.
If we are going to belittle Christians in the classroom, then the college owes it to have a forum where those ideas can be fully debated. Not just bullying a shy kid from the local church who just happens to be attending your class and feels like he needs to offer a rebuttal to the out right lies and distortion. In faith issues, context is everything. Non-believers have no context in there analysis and truthfully will never understand. Jesus spoke in parables so that the Arrogant could not understand. He explained the parables to the Apostles. You cannot attack God and expect him to be an open book to you. But then their was Paul…
I hold out hope for those that battle against the followers of God, but also know that they have to choose to seek the answers. Artificial Intelligence has made a break through in terms of being self-aware. My questions are at what point can College Professors become self-aware.