| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Talk:Andrew Schlafly
Contents
His students' college admissions[edit]
I removed that sentence that mentioned that Yale and Harvard are missing. I don't see the relevance. In addition, Westminster Choir College is actually part of Rider University, a nonsectarian private university in New Jersey. Plus, at least one of his students got accepted to Princeton, Schlafly's alma mater. And I find it peculiar Schlafly was once an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School and also mentions in his user page "Seton Hall University (2 students on big scholarships)". AP (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- He was an adjunct. Bottom-of-the-barrel ranking. No chance of tenure. Less job security than the janitor, who at least has an effective union be hind him. The job of "adjunct professor" does not give one any "pull" with the folks over at admissions. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
00:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Did he vote for Obama[edit]
From Barack Obama's Conservapedia Page:
"In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year a power struggle broke out among the dominant white liberals over control of the Harvard Law Review. Obama was elected its first black president as a compromise candidate largely with help of conservatives following a "marathon voting session" in which he finally won on the 19th ballot."
Who was a conservative editor of the Harvard Law Review that could have possibly voted in that election? Irrationalinhumanist (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This article contains some statheist religious irrationality[edit]
| Whining + persecution complex (sounds familiar? Yes, it's LogicMaster777 again) |
|---|
|
Overall, this is a pretty well-written article I must say. There is one area where I believe it indulges in some irrational presumptions and I wish to critically examine the corrupting anti-science influence of statism as it relates to the article, specifically the assertions it makes in the section "Outline legal status of homeschooling" and the implications of the "culture war" the article references. (LogicMaster777 talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC) This site has a strong statheist contingent who push an agenda of trying to establish statheism as a "rationalist" "viewpoint". This article references a "culture war" which I would interpret as a kind of ongoing online debate that has sort of become kind of a feud. To me this seems a battle between conservatives who sort of want to merge religion and politics together and leftist statheists who seem to see themselves as "non relgious" "atheists" while they preach their faith-based doctrine of government and its attendant higher power of "state".LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC) This site has a strong statheist contingent pushing an agenda of irrational faith in government dogma, trying to present statheism as rationalist.LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC) A good example is the section "Online legal Homeshooling". The article asserts that the "state" must prove parents failed to provide equivalent education. What is this "State" that "must prove" this? This is the "corporate person of the state". The mythical "person" of "New Jersey". It is like saying "Santa must deliver 6 billion packages by midnight". The article is using a mythical fictional "person" to explain physical phenomena of the universe(government snatching kids or forcing them to go to school). As the "evidence" this article cites it points to some legal scriptures. If one examines the scriptures, they use the language "the court held". "The court held"? What does this mean? It is attributing the actions of a man called a "judge" to an inanimate object called "the court". Magical thinking. What is meant by such metaphor is that a man in a black robe said so. LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC) x is authoritatively true because this authoritative writing written by the authority(that authority being derived from his scriptural invisible higher power) figure in the black priest's robe said so. Why should we accept this reasoning as "rationalism", statheists?LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
To highlight the heavy irrational leftist statheist agenda and bias prevalent on RationalWiki I point to how my logical critique on the fallacious presumptions and the corrupting intellectually nihilistic and anti-rational influences of leftist statheism displayed in the article were "collapsed" since they are supposedly "Incoherent". Just because you can't understand an argument or you don't personally like the conclusion, that doesn't make it "incoherent", Bicycle Wheel. The leftist statheists use the same tactics they criticize in CWers to deny rational criticism of their faith-based religious belief system and for the same reasons. This censorship attack to hide the rationalist critique of the irrational statist presumtions is a perfect example. Ironic that on the main article page this is the same sort of thing they criticise CW for!LogicMaster777 (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxTJnjLkbk8
|
How did someone with such a rich academic background (Princeton. Harvard) end up so anti-intellectual and irrational?[edit]
How?Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Try engineers and woo for a start and consider that the study of law is likely to encourage an approach that emphasises "winning" debates by whatever means, rather than critical, intellectual curiosity and scrutiny. See also, William Lane Craig. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- But...I studied law. While it does encourage an approach that emphasises "winning", it does not encourage winning at any cost. Also, for you to say that about the subject of law makes you sound rather ignorant on the subject. Law is indeed one of the subjects that demands critical thinking, intellectual curiousity and scrutiny. Don't make such sweeping and incorrect statements about a subject. You only need to look at the several landmark legal decisions, both recent and of old, of which there isn't a shortage, to know that what you just said about the subject of law is flat-out ignorant. Ted Cruz is akin to Schlafy in beliefs, and he too has a legal background. So, too was and did Antonin Scalia. They came to the subject with their religious prejudices. Law did not inform their religious nuttery. Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- It of course will depend on what your motivation for studying and working with law is and who you regard as your model lawyer (or judge). My point was that neither law nor engineering need challenge those who are, to use your designation, "anti-intellectual and irrational" as these subjects can be easily studied from a sort of "craftsmanship" perspective, something you also find in the medical field. I was not claiming that either subject actually produce or promote wingnuttery, just that their "filter" for challenging such ideas is less fine because you can easily avoid even discussing these notions - if you don't want to. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- But...I studied law. While it does encourage an approach that emphasises "winning", it does not encourage winning at any cost. Also, for you to say that about the subject of law makes you sound rather ignorant on the subject. Law is indeed one of the subjects that demands critical thinking, intellectual curiousity and scrutiny. Don't make such sweeping and incorrect statements about a subject. You only need to look at the several landmark legal decisions, both recent and of old, of which there isn't a shortage, to know that what you just said about the subject of law is flat-out ignorant. Ted Cruz is akin to Schlafy in beliefs, and he too has a legal background. So, too was and did Antonin Scalia. They came to the subject with their religious prejudices. Law did not inform their religious nuttery. Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Urgh[edit]
Seriously, did you have to put that smile in the main page?. I cannot look straight at it --Panzerfaust (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)