Lol, no. If anything, you get the same arousal pretending every academic endeavor you undertake is comprised of pure intellectualism differentiating you from "lesser" university students. Same arrogance articulated differently, to be perfectly frank.Uzique wrote:
god can we not dwell on it too much, please, nuk gets erections when we talk about the bloated and hegemonous, self-congratulating american ivy league.
I don't either...I post here occasionally because I like helping people, as well as practicing the subject if it's something I'm currently enrolled in.Uzique wrote:
err, im not the one posting in here every day trying to help everyone and flex my midget-IQ dick
i have the self-awareness to know that the process of my education involves, certainly, close attention to and a respect for the opinions and precedents that come before me- but also crucially involves a further process of integrating and filtering through that to form my own, personal ideas. my essays express these, and are thus graded well for it.
...i dont pretend every academic endeador i personally undertake is pure genius, not at all. im just saying i dont look up my professor's books, go to the library with their ISBN's and then suck their dick in written-form. ta.
Fair enough. I just get the sense my professor believes there is a right and wrong, even if there isn't.Uzique wrote:
but a weak-ass one
you're 20 years old. have some conviction and confidence in your own writing and thought. i'd hate to look back on my university years and think i tailored or even gave a damn about my professor's own thoughts and stances. especially in the arts/humanities - there are no concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'. if your paper is well researched and your views/conclusions well-founded and developed demonstrably, then the mark will speak for itself. that is all i meant in my own comment - hardly saying that every piece of work i have submitted has been academically ground-breaking.
American academia is a lovely place. To be honest, I think I might write a paper that doesn't really concede much and see what I get. As inflammatory as that exchange was, I think it may has convinced me.Jenspm wrote:
Surely a Yale professor must be more proffesional than that?
Pretty sure it was on topic already.To get this back on topic, I'm currently writing an essay on why Eastern Europe fell under communist rule.
maybe you'll change into a more polite person.Uzique wrote:
im currently reading proust, not because it contributes to any homework, but because it's fucking life-changingly good.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-03-31 01:42:39)
Is it more prevalent among older students?Uzique wrote:
ghetto, all the oxford/cambridge friends i know and tons of people at other high-ranking unis pop ritalin... revise-amin... especially during the exam term.
same shit, helps you concentrate.
over-the-counter, only, though. good luck feigning ADHD!
Completely unrelated; those Oakleys are very good sunglasses. I've had a pair of thos for almost ten years now. Only problem with them is the rubber thingies in the joints working as shocks have dried and turned to dust. Now they work best when riding a motorbike when the helmet keeps them in place. Too flappy otherwise.ghettoperson wrote:
Man, one of my professors is such a crazed liberal conspiracy theorist. This is the cover of one of his books...
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5 … SS500_.jpg
Last edited by Ultrafunkula (2010-03-31 02:13:47)
Princeton and Dartmouth have that covered. Only Brown surpasses Yale for Ivy League liberalness, and I find it difficult counting them.ghettoperson wrote:
BTW, I thought Yale is supposed to be a bastion of old boy networks and general Republican conservative douchebaggery? How come don't your professors love nukes?
Please don't criticize the verbosity or the big words; I write to excess like that late at night.Me, in my lovingly written paper wrote:
Many people attempt to portray the intellectual debate on nuclear weapons as one of two diametric opposites—staunch proponents combating unyielding abolitionists—but I don’t think this is accurate. Proponents undoubtedly are aware of the effects nuclear weapons cause, and they’ll invariably concede the potential for their usage implies some degree of danger exists in regards to human extinction. To deny this truth would not only be foolish, but would be an affront to academic honestly. Such an assumption lies inherent in their theory—without the possibility of grand-scale societal destruction, the inhibition to utilize nuclear weapons would not exist. And similarly, even the most dedicated abolitionists will concede that nuclear weapons provide an effective deterrence to attack when possessed in significant quantities, whether explicitly or implicitly (Schell, 2007).
The personal decision whether to argue for keeping nuclear weapons or advocate for their elimination is determined, in it’s essence, by a personal analysis of the costs and benefits associated with doing so. Since the arguments outlined above are themselves just packaged versions of the accepted positive and negative aspects of having nuclear weapons, that personal decision ultimately comes down to how one judges the extent of the validity of each argument. The most famous proponents or opponents are simply those who have determined one side or the other is significantly more applicable or appropriately weighed than the other. They’ll concede that what the other side offers are truths, but they’ll decide the significance of those tenets pales in comparison to the precepts they espouse. Many people are not firmly entrenched in one camp or the other, and for them, analyzing which side to support is an endeavor into nuance and critical thought.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-03-31 03:11:19)
