Events this week at the University of Missouri and Yale University should remind us all of the importance of absolute fidelity to our shared values. First, that we strive constantly to be, without exception, a welcoming, inclusive and discrimination-free community, where each person is respected and treated with dignity. Second, to be steadfast in preserving academic freedom and individual liberty.
Two years ago, a student-led initiative created the “We Are Purdue Statement of Values”, which was subsequently endorsed by the University Senate. Last year, both our undergraduate and graduate student governments led an effort that produced a strengthened statement of policies protecting free speech. What a proud contrast to the environments that appear to prevail at places like Missouri and Yale. Today and every day, we should remember the tenets of those statements and do our best to live up to them fully.
The really funny part is how in the PC world you are not allowed to use biology to justify traditional gender roles! So they would say "Men and women don't have genetically different thought patterns, it's all cultural and learned!" and then in the very next breath they would say "Gays and transsexuals have genetically different thought patterns, it's not at all cultural or learned!"
Yes, I've noticed this as well. I can't remember where I heard it, but someone quipped something like, "gender is 100% socially constructed, except at Trans O'Clock when its 100% biological". I don't pretend to know the cause for every aspect of gender roles or transsexualism but I think it's complicated and varies from individual to individual. For my part I can only try to assume good faith and wish the best for everyone.
Let me be real clear here. My cousin came out on facebook a few years ago and announced his decision.
IF I engaged in debate with him, IF I publicly encouraged him NOT to go through with it using nothing but scientific arguments, I would be the bad guy, I would be attacked, I would be shunned, and I would be called transphobic.
This is absolute insanity and also happens to hurt the progressive brand with the majority who aren't willing to engage in this subject at all. My personal opinion is that this is just another offshoot of toxic feminism, but that doesn't really matter to me as much as people being allowed to render an opinion that MAYBE people shouldn't cut their genitals off and should seek medical psychiatry instead.
1) Its my understanding that many (*MANY*) transgender persons don't opt for bottom surgery. The idea that genital reconstruction is a sin qua non of gender transition isn't accurate.
2) As far as I know, no one is allowed trans surgery without long-term psychiatric counseling to be sure what they are doing is right for them
If I've got that wrong then I'm wrong, but that's my understanding.
Isn't there a whole field of medicine dedicated to this subject? You really think you know better than doctors?
You show me one doctor on earth who can defend a 41% rate of attempted suicide.
"Well sir, I'll be happy to cut off your dick but keep in mind that your probably going to want to kill yourself afterwards."
Sounds like, yes, you do think you know better. And for all I know you may be right. The medical establishment isn't perfect and consensus can change in light of new data, but that's not the way to bet. I don't actually know any transgendered persons and don't have any particular expertise in the area. Neither, I'd venture to guess, do you (EDIT: OK, I see now that you have a trans family member, so you probably know more than I do about it. That doesn't make you right). I'm sorry to have to say this but your dismissal here really does look like the climate change deniers who say "the whole scientific establishment has got it all wrong, as you can see by this one fact/chart/statistic." You're being glib about a subject you don't know much about.
Huh? Non-scientific sites? You're completely delusional. Every scientific site is in agreement on climate science.
Then why are you libbies always quoting left-wing radical sites like grist.org, thinkprogress, Skeptical Science and more as the "authorities" and bible on G.W.? That kinda' destroys your argument completely...
Here's another non, scientific, left-wing radical source (written by scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego and Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading) which says the same thing. Go ahead and read it, it's only 34 pages not counting references: http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/02_Norris_and_Slingo.pdf
Which answers the question of conflict of interest.
If enough headway is not made during the timeframe of the first grant, successive grants (read "paychecks") are in jeopardy. Time to massage the numbers for personal security??
Grants aren't paychecks for tenured professors, are they? They're funding for research of interest to them. And what do you think a grant proposal entails? They aren't saying that 'I'm going to prove global warming by doing X,' are they? The scientists do very specific research that contributes to overall understanding of what is happening.
You've got it exactly right. In fact misappropriating grant money for personal use is something that CAN get you fired. Winning grants can be highly prestigious and further someone's career by allowing them to publish, attend conferences, etc but any financial incentives will be indirect and down the line (in the form of a promotion or moving to a higher paying department elsewhere). If you don't have tenure, winning grants can help you get it. A lot.
Right. So university climate scientists are stupid and corrupt. They couldn't get industry jobs, and are embezzling their grants for personal use.
not what i said, and you are certainly trolling at this point. they don't want to (or socially can't) function inside industry - have you ever known an academic? i do, as very close family friends but they are train wrecks. so yes, they are completely dependent on university funding to perpetually put off becoming a full blown adult.
Why yes I do! My father is a (now emeritus) professor of Mathematics at a major research university. Most of the adults I knew growing up were university professors, mostly in Math, Statistics, Engineering, and physical sciences. Several of these relationships grew into adult friendships and I'm still in contact with quite a few of them. Several of my high school friends are so talented and driven that they are now tenured University faculty themselves. And I have my own 20 year career in the private sector to compare it with (banking, maritime logistics and software engineering if you care). So no, I do not share your blanket assessment of academics; the great majority of the ones I know are highly intelligent and driven to achieve, and I have no doubt (*NONE*) that they would have thrived in business or technology jobs if that is where they had chosen to direct their attention. Want to know another of my secrets? Not all of them are particularly liberal
I'd not heard of this case. From what I read the case is still pending and will be decided by a committee http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/24308/. If he does lose the case (I hope he wins, FWIW) it will be the first time I've ever heard of such a thing and I've known a LOT of profs.
The reasons I have heard of tenure being revoked:
* having sex with a student (by far the most common)
* financial impropriety (holding two academic jobs without telling, or embezzling grant money)
* one guy hadn't published or taught his classes in 15 years (made his grad students do everything) and was running a slumlord business on the side
In every one of these cases it took an expensive multi-year investigation for the school to get rid of them. It's certainly not the case in general that opposing gay marriage will cost you tenure; take for example this guy - he's a good friend of mine although he's dead wrong on this particular issue: https://www.math.purdue.edu/~gottlieb/Law/gaymarriage.html
nice try again mis-characterizing my post due to the fact that your smarmy attempt to uncover "deniers" as morons has backfired on you. it is because of civil unrest and economic distress that governments seek more control, not the other way around.
Ok, then you again are left with an empty bag! Let's say you are right:
1) climate science professors are motivated by the threat of losing their grants and tenure
2) grant-issuing bodies and university administrators who are motivated by board positions in green tech
3) Business/government leaders (masters of the universe types), motivated by ??? Again, all of the motivations seem to be in the other direction. What possible incentive do they have to impose unpopular policies or have to negotiate with other nations? I can see the incentives the other way, because it means they can offer cheap gas, lower taxes, and less regulation which of course the people want.
So you *STILL* haven't given anything which could be considered an incentive for this large fraud. I thought I had finally understood that the enviro-academic-biggov complex was doing this on purpose to wreak havoc on the economy. But if that's not it then what is it?
p.s. I fully expect your next move will be to insult my family. Go right ahead; they don't care what you think of them either.
firstly these bunch of peter pans wouldn't be able to function in the real world (of which they lack a basic common understanding) so yes they are deeply dependent on grant money for their accustomed livelihood inside the quad.
Right. So university climate scientists are stupid and corrupt. They couldn't get industry jobs, and are embezzling their grants for personal use.
what can possibly go wrong when someone is president at a major university and also on the board of directors of a multinational corporation developing green technology with (or even just reducing their carbon footprint for) federal subsidies? what about a former public official pushing a new green agenda within a think tank yet also serving as a university department chair (and maybe the same guy who created the federal subsidies for that green technology being developed by the MNC above)?
If all it takes is money, the amount available to renewable energy companies (all subsidies included) must be peanuts compared to what the traditional (fossil fuel) energy companies can bring to bear. So they must be doing a terrible job.
what incentives "Big Government" (by which I guess you mean the NSF et al) has to bias/bribe/corrupt the academic-scientific field in this way
it's the same trick government used with the church in the old days - academic elitism is the new secular church. government seeks control, especially during periods of civil unrest and economic distress. with the climate narrative, backed by the wealthy ownership class (who by the way could care less as they zip around in private aircraft and power up 10 bedroom estates - so long as they get theirs) and prophesied by the new secular church - the government is in a very good position to exert lots of control over the public at large.
And now we get to the top of the pyramid! The ultimate source of this deep web of corruption: the business and political elites are behind the whole thing (and knowing that it's a lie) for the specific purpose of causing civil unrest and economic distress.
Thank you for the trip down the rabbit hole; I have to say I couldn't have come up with that myself. If I hadn't been on this board for so long I'd think you were trolling. I think I'm going back to lurking now; have fun.
f you can easily the see (financial) motives behind the dissenters then logically many more scientists should take that route because the desire to make money and succeed is strongly ingrained in human beings. So the reality is that the money (and careers) to be had in big government is a much larger and more powerful source than the fossil fuel industry. Also, just because a big fossil company loves you today for your dissent doesn't mean anything as to whether you will have your job tomorrow. If you work for the government and the consensus science, your job and income is pretty much guaranteed. You won't get a grant for trying to disprove CC/GW, you will get many for toeing the party line.
With all due respect, this doesn't actually identify an incentive but simply asserts that one must exist. Since many (most?) of the scientists working in the field have tenure they can't actually be fired for not typing the party line as it were. As for grant money (which by the way researchers don't get to keep for themselves), this just pushes the question back to what incentives "Big Government" (by which I guess you mean the NSF et al) has to bias/bribe/corrupt the academic-scientific field in this way (even if we accept that grant money alone could do it). And again, all the incentives seem to me to be in the other direction because the policy implications are very difficult.
So the simple explanation is that the great majority of scientists in the field, as well as the scientists advising the key grant-issuing bodies, are genuinely convinced that there is a grave problem. Am I missing something?
Question for O.P. or any other conservatives on this issue: what do you think is the incentive driving such a massive scientific fraud? It's easy for me to see what incentives the 3% of dissenting scientists would have (and their supporters for believing then): no AGW means we don't have to change our lifestyles, cooperate with other countries or spend any money to address it. But for the life of me I don't see any corresponding incentive the other way. So do you really think the great majority of climate scientist are just drama queens who like raising panic over nothing? Or are they all unreformed Marxists working to subvert capitalism? I'd really like to know what you think.
Tipping is fucking awful. If you were to explicitly pay your employees in the way tippers do it would be illegal:
- women servers paid more than men (particularly young, conventionally attractive women)
- white servers paid more than minorities
- tall servers more than short servers
- extra pay for physical contact/flirting
Still, that's the system we have. If you don't tip it just makes you a cheap asshole.
I don't have a problem with someone who wants to be an artist, or of someone getting an expensive degree in art providing that they (or their families) can afford it and that's what they want to spend their money on. But borrowing medical school/law school money to get such a degree makes no sense and we shouldn't support it. Artists don't make doctor/lawyer money.