4 ms·

I can’t speak to what the original poster experienced in college, but your heated response implies a resistance to at least some forms on inquiry as unacceptabl

by meany 4y ago

I can’t speak to what the original poster experienced in college, but your heated response implies a resistance to at least some forms on inquiry as unacceptable or inappropriate or at a minimum worthy of disparagement, which I think undermines your argument a bit.

quadrifoliate 4y ago
> but your heated response implies a resistance to at least some forms on inquiry as unacceptable or inappropriate or at a minimum worthy of disparagement I'm trying to engage reasonably by assuming some things here, specifically that the OP has peripheral knowledge of some courses (since they haven't actually attended college recently) and they are categorizing the relatively detached nature of those courses as "a priori admiration". I guess I could also respond by simply asking for specific examples of "a priori admiration" that the OP has seen in college courses recently. I doubt I will get any, but am open to changing my mind if I do.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  The person you are replying to was onto something when he called your comment "heated" Your first post had none of the things you are talking about in your 2nd post... It simply said "that's bullshit" and suggested that what changed is the openness of western culture to criticism. Your second post (one I am replying to) is more reasonable but if this is somehow what you originally meant that's not what came out..
  - quadrifoliate 4y ago
    > The person you are replying to was onto something when he called your comment "heated" I would probably say blunt, but I think you got the general tone correct. > Your second post (one I am replying to) is more reasonable but if this is somehow what you originally meant that's not what came out.. Well, the original post had no proof and was making wild statements. It's fair game to meet it with a blunt assessment. Do you spend time arguing with the wild-eyed guy on the street who is holding a sign that secret agencies are spying on you? Probably not. On the other hand, see that in a national paper with some references and statistics, and hey, you're actually sitting up and taking notice. Your first comment was much more on the wild-eyed guy side of the scale, hence the (probably overly so, sorry!) blunt engagement.

by meany 4y ago

quadrifoliate 4y ago

> but your heated response implies a resistance to at least some forms on inquiry as unacceptable or inappropriate or at a minimum worthy of disparagement I'm trying to engage reasonably by assuming some things here, specifically that the OP has peripheral knowledge of some courses (since they haven't actually attended college recently) and they are categorizing the relatively detached nature of those courses as "a priori admiration". I guess I could also respond by simply asking for specific examples of "a priori admiration" that the OP has seen in college courses recently. I doubt I will get any, but am open to changing my mind if I do.

xyzelement 4y ago
The person you are replying to was onto something when he called your comment "heated" Your first post had none of the things you are talking about in your 2nd post... It simply said "that's bullshit" and suggested that what changed is the openness of western culture to criticism. Your second post (one I am replying to) is more reasonable but if this is somehow what you originally meant that's not what came out..
- quadrifoliate 4y ago
  > The person you are replying to was onto something when he called your comment "heated" I would probably say blunt, but I think you got the general tone correct. > Your second post (one I am replying to) is more reasonable but if this is somehow what you originally meant that's not what came out.. Well, the original post had no proof and was making wild statements. It's fair game to meet it with a blunt assessment. Do you spend time arguing with the wild-eyed guy on the street who is holding a sign that secret agencies are spying on you? Probably not. On the other hand, see that in a national paper with some references and statistics, and hey, you're actually sitting up and taking notice. Your first comment was much more on the wild-eyed guy side of the scale, hence the (probably overly so, sorry!) blunt engagement.