3 ms·
My argument is obviously not meant to be taken literally. It's a _reductio ad absurdum_ argument. I should have said destroy instead of abolish, as that is alre
by joesmo 11y ago
My argument is obviously not meant to be taken literally. It's a _reductio ad absurdum_ argument. I should have said destroy instead of abolish, as that is already happening because students are refusing to learn because they're offended by words like 'violation,' and 'rape.' If students refuse to learn even the basic concept of 'violating the law', how can they possibly have hope of becoming lawyers? They can't. They're literally destroying the educational system because they also won't drop out and shovel garbage or whatever they're best at (obviously not much given their incredibly high stupidity). Do you even have universities anymore at that point? No.
- danharaj 11y agoIt's actually a straw man argument, unless you show that the reasoning I laid out implies that universities will be destroyed. That's probably going to get you fighting down a slippery slope, so I'm not too confident you'll show it to be the case :) Corporate lawyers don't need to know about rape law, for example. I am neither a law student nor a law professor. It's not my lot to tell them how to hash out their conflicts. I think they can come to an agreement that accommodates everyone; for example, exemptions from class for the period where rape law is discussed. I think universities will survive if they treat their students as worth negotiating with rather than griping in public about how childish their students are. I went to university. I know how condescending professors can be. I think it's reasonable to infer that this recent spate of public griping stems from anxiety, because authority that is challenged always feels anxious.