The Unfunny Right
Freakinoldguy @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:14 pm
jason700 jason700:
Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:
I don't. But then again I also don't expect to see a repairman arrive at my door with a Masters Degree in Political Science when my electrical panel craps out.
The point I'm getting at here is that both are necessary and because the electrician decided to concentrate on something that interests him and pays well he shouldn't be considered uneducated or less smart just because of choice.
The point I'm getting at here is that both are necessary and because the electrician decided to concentrate on something that interests him and pays well he shouldn't be considered uneducated or less smart just because of choice.
The point I'm getting at is that, when it comes to politics, I would take a person with a Masters Degree in Political Science's opinion over the electrician. When it comes to the Criminal Justice system, I would trust the advice of someone with a Degree in Criminology over the plumber. Not saying trades people are not smart. They are, but we ARE discussing politics though right?
I thought we were talking humour.
I guess this thread has gone completely off the rails. What brought up this whole question was a statement made by somebody about the left leaning people being smarter. $1:
Academics (smart-people) are left-leaning? I DO wonder why that is.
So I guess the real question here is, Does and education make you smart or just more educated????????????
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
CanadianJeff @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:53 am
Well considering the remarks I got out of a lot of my profs at times without them having any kind of realistic backing I think that's pretty solved. I kid you not that one of my profs remarked that Canada was "falling apart with the disintegration of her social nets" under the conservative party. I asked her outside of class if she could give some examples and she could not come up with one at all outside ending funding for women special rights groups.
That and much of the liberal sociological theories tend to operate around the idea that society as a whole is driven by conflict rather then by functional unity. It's really the key pin in their package so to speak. Truth be told there are some elements of society that do undeniably occur due to conflict but more often then not these are the elements in society that are dysfunctional such as gangs rising up due to segregation of a minority etc.
But isn't part of the very deffiinition of a society a group of people banding together to better their chances of survival by forming civilization? If civilization is in constant conflict then doesn't that make any sort of unionization near impossible? I would argue that society MUST have some structure and functionalism to survive and that no entity could possibly be based off conflict entirely and survive.
But hey what would I know. I don't have a doctrine in science so I really can't challenge the system now can I? They only seem to recognize the paper rather then the person....how very functional to avoid conflict.