Buffalo wrote: It's been the point of your whole tired denial throughout this thread. You don't want the American intelligentsia to be liberal, so you must invent reasons to disqualify them.
Are those who dominate Wall Street liberal? Are they part of the 'American intelligentsia'?
The merchant class? I don't think so.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Your sweeping generalizations and utter black and white thinking is embarrassing. One could list conservative philosophers and thinkers til the cows came home. Off the top of my head:
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Thomas Hobbes Edmund Burke Samuel Taylor Coleridge Thomas Carlyle Matthew Arnold John Ruskin Oswald Spengler T.S. Eliot John Henry Newman G.K. Chesterton
Can you think of any with a pulse?
Off the top of my head: Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will.
Because an education in business or finance is really just an advanced form of an occupational certificate. These people aren't really educated per se. Not in the same sense as someone with a degree in mathematics or history. An MBA has more in common with a plumbing certificate than a PhD.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Morley wrote: Off the top of my head: Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will.
I rest my case.
As I would have predicted.
I'm sure that I'm at least as liberal as you are, Buffalo. However, I'm not certain you do yourself or your arguments any favor by being so seemingly dismissive of the intellect of the 'other side.' It's analogous to TBMs dismissing the morals of apostates.
Buffalo wrote: Because an education in business or finance is really just an advanced form of an occupational certificate. These people aren't really educated per se. Not in the same sense as someone with a degree in mathematics or history. An MBA has more in common with a plumbing certificate than a PhD.
My emphasis.
Seriously? Or is this just another example of hyperbole?
Many in the financial sector have PhDs in economics. Are they, too, plumbing certificates?
Your sweeping generalizations and utter black and white thinking is embarrassing. One could list conservative philosophers and thinkers til the cows came home. Off the top of my head:
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Thomas Hobbes Edmund Burke Samuel Taylor Coleridge Thomas Carlyle Matthew Arnold John Ruskin Oswald Spengler T.S. Eliot John Henry Newman G.K. Chesterton
Can you think of any with a pulse?
I rest my case.
I already pointed out that you were assuming that "conservative" only covered a small subset of contemporary american punditry. And what did you do? You just made the same silly point again, in effect agreeing with my criticism of your ignorance without seeming to understand that you were doing it.
This has been Stak's point all along. It is not the case that he "doesn't want the American intelligentsia to be liberal." He's not provided any commentary on that at all. All he has done is patiently unpack the problems with your line of argument in order to show the silly generalizations and binary thinking which dominate it.
And now Morley is doing the same thing.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Buffalo wrote: Because an education in business or finance is really just an advanced form of an occupational certificate. These people aren't really educated per se. Not in the same sense as someone with a degree in mathematics or history. An MBA has more in common with a plumbing certificate than a PhD.
My emphasis.
Seriously? Or is this just another example of hyperbole?
Many in the financial sector have PhDs in economics. Is that, too, a plumbing certificate?
Some do, but not many.
Some have PhDs in physics or literature, too. But not many.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Blixa wrote:I already pointed out that you were assuming that "conservative" only covered a small subset of contemporary american punditry. And what did you do? You just made the same silly point again, in effect agreeing with my criticism of your ignorance without seeming to understand that you were doing it.
This has been Stak's point all along. It is not the case that he "doesn't want the American intelligentsia to be liberal." He's not provided any commentary on that at all. All he has done is patiently unpack the problems with your line of argument in order to show the silly generalizations and binary thinking which dominate it.
And now Morley is doing the same thing.
The only thing Stak has done was try to redefine the word liberal until it has no meaning and applies to no one. All because he couldn't admit he was wrong about the dominance of liberalism in academia.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.