Relatively rushed response: May have missed something/misinterpreted something
The education system makes them more liberal, because the professors are overwhelmingly liberal. You get taught what to think.
Yay, conspiracy theories. Those damn professors.
I'd say liberal peer groups form during and after the education, because that's where a lot of conservatives are converted by peer and authority pressure alike. Have you ever had to write a conservative-sounding paper because you knew your teacher was a fire-breathing ideologue who'd mark down a reasoned liberal-sounding paper? Conservatives have this all the time. I had two professor where I just didn't feel comfortable writing my own opinions, so I had to think like a liberal. Some bend and snap back into place, some bend and never snap back, and some break and get the bad mark. That's how it goes.
Do you have any evidence to say that self-identified conservatives are converted to liberalism (like they are religions or something)? How did you know they would mark it down? You are making the assumption that writing a "conservative" paper would definetely get the bad mark (for being conservative), without pondering the other reasons for why that might happen (apparently a conservative paper WILL get an unfair mark)? If they did, perhaps it was for other reasons (such as containing massive ammounts of fallacies that most of your arguments seem to be composed of)? You make the assumption that your conservative-sounding paper would be (despite not even having come into existance) reasoned.
If they are "converted" (as you misleadingly put it), perhaps it's because education makes them see the world clearer or some such? Perhaps they legitimetely changed the way they think, rather than it being a conspiracy theory to liberalise everyone. Have you thought that perhaps if what you claim to be happening is true, it is not due to evil professor's and their pressure, but some other cause?
Are professors liberal "fire-breathing idealogue's"? Would this not be painting the wrong impression of them, since im sure any biologist would be fully aware they are incapable of breathing fire. This languages demonises your opponents, it is a straw man.
"Some bend and snap back into place" Because conservatism is "in place" (No explanation given as to why). All you are showing is a clear emotional bias for conservatism, still without backing it up. You are assuming it is correct.
Your argument is nothing but
Professor Values, it sounds like something straight off Conservapedia.
Anyway, long live education. It helps you see and understand the world for what it is. Understanding how it works, and furthermore being able to apply this knowledge in a meaningful way. Without it, we would be limited to seeing the world throught the foggy glasses of idealology. Accepting what is what without being able to think about it.
Without reasonable education, people would only have enough knowledge to labour towards ipads/whatever, never knowing anymore than what they need. The thought of this world makes me very sad.
History is not liberal
Of course not. It is not conservative either. Both of these concepts as they are now known are relatively modern idea's. Most of history was either in anarchy, or totalitarianism. The definitions for liberal and conservative change all the time. If you look at the history through a modern interpetation of these concepts, you will get a warped view of history.
Besides, considering the average life span, the poor living/working conditions of the past...
There's a lot of lessons that aren't fit to be digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind, and they worry that young initiates might grow confused, so they help you by conveniently presenting only the facts that fit.
Argh, more unfounded conspiracy's. Proof. Or is it just so?
"digested in the appropriately liberal frame of mind" Again, straw man. All "liberal" minds (please define) cannot digest the same information? Are all liberals think-alikes? If conservatism is the oppisite of liberalism does this make conservatism think-alikes too (could they digest what the liberal minds could not, and reject what they could?)
It seems like the only way you can justify having an opposing view-point to these professors is to claim conspiracy. What you have said on the subject of professors, and the reasoning as to why they have opposing view points seems to be an inverse Argumentum ad verecundiam.
Read it again. The crash in 1937 that lead to a double-dip was immediately preceeded by tax raises.
Coorelation does not necessarily equal causation. Yet you insist on acting as if it does. Why? Please back up your point with something that would actually be an argument in your favour, this is not.
Let me give you some examples:
This one in particular would
seem to support doing something to reduce inequality (for example taxing the rich):
To argue that the 1981 tax cuts were responsible for recession afterward, you'd have to find a different reason why there was a recession immediately before in 1980, too. Probably a combination of bad factors, like gas prices...
And this! You are now suddenly understanding that coorelation does not imply causation, only for an opposing argument, not for your own though. Dare I say this is a good show of bias, particularly
Confirmation bias?
As for WWII, most other countries had their industly leveled (considering the big producer was Britian). So America did not have much problem selling machinery considering they were basically the only ones that could produce it in any meaningful quantity. It was pretty much an American monopoly.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 753277 times)