Quote Originally Posted by chuck View Post
The author definitely points in that direction, but only states that "that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened" and goes on to state that that fact may be responsible for our economic troubles. He relies on the reader to associate that statement with the findings presented in the body of his piece.

A cute use of sophism imho and not an all that subtle one eaither in regards to the idea that liberalism is the perpetrator or our economic demise, of course we should seperate liberals the political group from liberals the education system.

That is my belief. From the results of this survey, it is easy to surmise that the educational system is teaching doctrine instead of fact.

It's been doing that since way back when they switched away from the classical educational model to the liberal one so I personally didn't require the article for that when I can see it myself first hand.

I hate absolutes and can't see placing all the blame anywhere. I do place a lot of the blame on the liberal educational system and I've seen nothing logical that better explains why much of the populace support positions that are detrimental to our economy.

It is possible that the exonomic sistuation also developed into something too complex for "directed" evolution when one is dealing from a limited perspective.

I read the word "cute" in the context he used it as derisive. If I misinterpreted his intent, I owe him an apology.

I am most sure it was not ment as a personal jibe.

He equated the report with claims of similar but opposing points of view but has yet back up his claim or provide an example.

He simply pointed out that one can quite literally say the same exact thing about the other side by simple substitution of a few nouns etc. I am assuming that the colleges in question are well known rivals. (Insert conservative for liberal and minus out regulation for de-regulation etc etc)

Regardless, pointing to a flaw elsewhere is not a valid way to address a flaw that is being addressed.

Why not? Socrates did it as a matter of routine if I recall correctly.

I agree that unsupported derisive comments is not a beneficial tactic and should be put aside. It would indeed be beneficial that, if there is an issue with the survey and/or the article that describes it, there will be an honest critique of it and not just a "cute" dismissal.
Why how cute. Does this mean we are all ready to discuss the topic instead of weather or not anyone has offended someone by their choice of adjectives?