"I have hidden a ribbon somewhere on my person."
Dude, wouldn't it be easier and less temptation creating to have separate mens and womens colleges and simply bring them together for chaperoned dances and recitals? That's what we did in 7th grade in girls' school.
Mein Gott, wot vere you zinking off? Das Tanzen could veaken ze purity off ze rasse, und ze moral wille off ze elite.
Ya know.. I happen to send my kids to very old and well established Catholic private school here in Vienna. It used to be a Jesuit College for boys. If I even got a smell of rules like this, they would be so taken out of that school.
What depraved mind dreams this shit up?
The next time someone uses the toast "in your eye" I shall have a hard time not thinking of Pensacola.
Who runs this place??? The Taliban??
"Making eye babies" is one for the lexicon.
"Keep your eyes closed" is the new "keep your legs crossed". Sunglasses and other forms of contraspection are strictly forbidden, the sole domain of liberal whore-sluts.
Liberal whore-slut! I mean, thanks.
Liberal whore-slut! This made me laugh. Gawd, I'm easy.
Gawd, I'm easy.
Liberal whore-slut.
Thank god for that. Liberal whore-sluts really are the best whore-sluts.
Are they also the best liberals?
No, the best liberals are the gay married ones. But there is a significant intersection between the two sets.
Gawd, I'm easy.
Guess we know what's playing on Tim's iPod.
Also, what the hell is "wallyball?"
We used to play it in elementary school gym. You have a really high wall, and kids on one side throw the ball over. If a kid on the other side catches it, the kid who threw it is out. At least I think that's how it used to go. I forget what you get if no one catches it.
That's not the wallyball I'm familiar with, AWB. It's volleyball played on a handball court, with the net stretched across the court. No out-of-bounds.
Is a handball court like a racquetball court?
I thought Wallyball was any style of basketball game in which Wally Szerbiack (and, by implication, any overrated American white guy) featured prominently.
that's what I thought wallball was too (kinda like normal basketball, but a little slower and goofier).
except that I doubt it would be taught in phys-ed classes in pensacola. unless wally S. tends to lead that kinda life? I don't know...
Dang, eye intercourse? I guess I get laid all the time then. I sure cound use a good stare job though.
Don't laugh, I've gotten some nasty-ass rug burns from teh "optical intercourse."
I thought it was OK to make "eye babies" as long as you don't abort them.
...
"Nurse, prep the patient; we'll need to D&C that ocular fœtus."
I've got baby daddies in all five boroughs.
You sluts--listening too attentively to someone of the opposite sex can result in ear babies, too. This is just another reason why you shouldn't stick things in your ear.
My favorite copy of The Faerie Queen has a note tipped in that says:
"The fact that this volume is being used as a text or reference in Bob Jones University does not mean that the University endorses its contents from the standards of morals, philosophy, theology, or scientific hypotheses. The position of Bob Jones University on these subjects is well known."
"In order to standardize the work and validate the credits of the University, it is sometimes necessary to use books whose contents the University cannot wholly endorse because no entirely satisfactory publication is available."
Wow. Bob Jones sure is liberal, teaching The Faerie Queen. I'm sure that would never happen at Pensacola, where literature classes must consist of reading Pilgrim's Progress over and over and over.
30 made me laugh long and hard.
Oh but I misseed the "must". The comment is much funnier without that word.
Someday I'll figure out teh funny.
I doubt The Pilgrim's Progress or any other work of real literature is safe for them, and let me add in my best Hal-Holbrook-as-Mark-Twain voice that the bible ain't either. I studied PP for my MA exam (hi apo) and thought it was a remarkable imaginative work.
You sluts--listening too attentively to someone of the opposite sex can result in ear babies, too
heh.* And let's not get into all those unwanted nose babies out there.
*Can I use that without it being taken in the same tone as used by the good ol Perfesser. I suppose if I have to ask then, well...indeed.
Hey quit penetrating all those unusual orifices, perverts!
Sex doesn't have to involve penetration, TMK.
It's harder now to tell who posted just from the title of the post, but I see some patterns emerging.
In terms of syntax or word choice?
#4
You had me going for a minute damnit.
In the spirit of the post I'd like to point everyone towards Google Romance.
I had a good friend who attended Pensecola Christian College.
I have many very, very good stories.
He was a bad student though, expelled near the end of his sophmore year for smoking teh pot.
If 43 is joke, I don't get it. If it's a serious question, the answer is yes.
He also had a girlfriend there, another student. To see one another, they had to leave campus independantly from one another, go faaaar away before meeting up, and then return to campus separately. This was sometimes hard to do because they had to explain to their faculty supervisors where they were all the time, and plus they had strict curfews.
No, it was a serious question. Did he know going in that they were like that?
His parents sent him (or, more accurately, refused to pay his tuition anywhere else). He knew what the rules were like going in, but I'm not sure he gave it too much thought either way.
I never understood the purpose most of the rules; the more I heard about them, the more absurdly and arbitrarily pointless they seemed to me. I mean I can understand (sort of) no dating or dancing or sex or drugs or drinking or intense eye fucking or whatever, but expelling people for coming back to campus together (in a large group!) after meeting by chance at McDonalds? That just makes *zero* fucking sense. And he had dozens of stories of a similar nature.
The funny thing was he said most of the student body seemed pretty happy with the rules. They were obviously the sorts who thought sex et al. was a big sin, and appreciated the way the environment took away much of the temptation (by removing the opportunity.)
One guy in his dorm was expelled when he had a wet dream one night and didn't wash himself off quickly enough. This was taken as evidence that he must have "enjoyed" the wet dream (which was very bad), since the proper (ashamed) response would have been to get up and wash the filth from himself as quickly as possible.
Anyway, my friend more or less ignored the rules from day one. Not blatantly -- he tried to hide it, not wanting to be thrown out -- but it was always a lost cause. I'm surprised he lasted two years, honestly.
And it is weird that on the one hand "dating" is allowed and even encouraged, but on the other hand the couple can never touch one another or be alone together, even innocently.
Why not just say that dating/relationships are banned? They are, in fact -- what's the point in pretending otherwise?
These people have obviously never read "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg".
I would say they could try "cry, cry, introspect, cry" but it's a sin to shed tears upon the ground.
One guy in his dorm was expelled when he had a wet dream one night and didn't wash himself off quickly enough. This was taken as evidence that he must have "enjoyed" the wet dream (which was very bad), since the proper (ashamed) response would have been to get up and wash the filth from himself as quickly as possible.
I probably don't want to know, but do you understand the chain of events which led to this being found out? I guess I'll be specific about what I don't understand: who was inspecting his person for dried semen which he failed to promptly clean?
I am unsure why I feel that I shouldn't let this comment be directly associated with my regular pseudonym, but I'll go with my gut.
I'm also interested to know the answer to two household appliances' question. Or if Urple does not know it, to engage in speculation as to the chain of events which led to this being found out. And does "not quickly enough" mean five minutes after he woke up, or 2 days later? Because I could see the latter being objectionable.
51/52- It's worse than you could imagine. "Not quickly enough" means that he woke up in the middle of the night after the "incident", and decided to just go back to sleep and shower in the morning, instead of getting up right then to go wash away the evidence.
And he was discovered because his roommate became aware of the "situation" (I'm not sure the details here, but I can imagine not-abnormal circumstances in which this would occur.) His roommate suspected masterbation, which was a Very Grave Sin, and so reported the facts to one of the supervisors. When they inquired into the situation, the poor kid told them that there was no masturbation, that it was just a (uncontrollable) wet dream, and related the above facts. Their official judgment was that either (1) he was lying and he had masturbated, or (2) what I said above, that if he was not lying, he should have gotten up in the middle of the night and washed himself clean, and that his failure to do so indicated that he probably on some level enjoyed the wet dream, which was dangerously close to masturbation, or something like that.
I should say that I was of course not an eyewitness to any of the above, but that's how my friend told the story, and he was definitely not joking, was not prone to exaggeration, and had no obvious reason to lie.
I want to be in charge of administering the Student Code of Discipline at Pensacola Christian.
Years ago, in high school, I dated a girl who later went to Pensacola. We went to a movie once, totally unchaperoned. OMG!
She was a great girl, and was happy at Pensacola, from what I understand. She knew what she was in for before she went there, and presumably most other people who went did, too. If they want that for themselves, who am I to say there's something wrong with it? They are not hurting anyone, and I personally find such self-discipline an admirable quality far too often lacking in today's society.
It's not something I'd have enjoyed or found to be especially enlightening or otherwise beneficial for myself, but whatever, it takes all kinds. Mocking them for choosing this path for themselves seem pretty stupid and closed-minded to me.
It's not like anyone is forcing them to go there, unless their parents are, in which cases there's probably legitimate reason for criticizing the parents for setting their children up for misery and failure. But I'd guess that "parents forced me to" is low on the list of reasons why people enroll there.
Pudge, people can choose the life path they like, but there is reason to believe Pensacola doesn't want them making fully informed choices:
When he was a student, Mr. Harding traveled with a singing group that promoted Pensacola. When prospective students asked about accreditation, Mr. Harding says the singers were instructed to tell them that Harvard and Yale are not accredited, either, and so accreditation doesn't matter. (Harvard and Yale, for the record, are accredited.)
And if you don't find this disturbingly cultish, I don't know what to say to you:
Administrators there equate loyalty to the college with obedience to God in a way she finds objectionable. "They used to say that being at PCC is God's will for our lives," she says. "So walking out of PCC would be breaking God's will for our lives. Then I've heard them say that you might end up dying because God can't use you anymore."
I also don't want to mock the students. I want to mock the super-creepy administration. As, it seems, do most of the posters on this site.
Is that not disturb
I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is legally actionable fraud. It's definitely deceiving someone to get them to come to your school.
Pudge, people can choose the life path they like, but there is reason to believe Pensacola doesn't want them making fully informed choices
A single incredible anecdote is not such reason to me.
And if you don't find this disturbingly cultish, I don't know what to say to you
Again, an incredible anecdote.
I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is legally actionable fraud.
If it can be proven, sure. And at that point it is no longer a mere unproven anecdote, and I will believe that it actually happened. Until then, I won't.
Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's true, you know. I read the other day that Jill Carroll hates America, and I don't believe that, either.
Pudge, the article was in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. Sure, magazines sometimes get it wrong, but that's a fairly reliable one, and this is a blog, i.e., a place where people comment on the information they have available at the time.
Further, though I sometimes have occasion to discuss certain "lifestyle choices" of mine to people who share most of my values, but not all, I don't actually think that "If they want that for themselves, who am I to say there's something wrong with it?" is sufficient to defend an action or a way of living. There may be a good reason for not passing laws against willful communities, but us expressing our community's dislike of cults and hysteria about sex: a good thing.
Pudge, the details of the article may be wrong. OTOH, we have testimony from someone we know here that the place is as crazy as it's described. And given that you don't believe in anthropogenic global warming either, the fact that you don't believe these stories tells us more about you than it does about these stories.
No more troll-feeding for me on this thread.
I apologize for that last post. Reading over the linked post, the last paragraph is sensible:
However, that said, we do know that there are some very good theories explaining climate change, in part, in terms of human acitivity, and that if those theories are correct, and we do nothing, we're screwed. So we should take action, even while not knowing for sure if there is a problem that we're causing, or can correct.
You may just have a higher standard for the words "compelling evidence" than I do. (Still, on global warming and hurricanes, this has suggestive value).
As for Pensacola, we don't know that those stories are correct, but we do have testimony (from Urple) that things are pretty extreme there.
Pudge, the article was in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. Sure, magazines sometimes get it wrong, but that's a fairly reliable one
And the New York Times, the Paper of Record, printed someone saying Hussein had WMD. Big deal. I am a responsible person: I do not believe incredible claims without solid evidence.
Some of the claims seem pretty credible, like the eye babies thing. Some others, like everyone getting expelled for just happening to show up at a restaurant at the same time, are not. (It's telling that there's a named source for the first claim, and not for the second.)
and this is a blog, i.e., a place where people comment on the information they have available at the time.
What's that got to do with anything at all? The fact that you are commenting on the information you have available at the time does not excuse you from considering that the information you have might be inaccurate. If they story is incorrect, then you are an accomplice in the perpetuation of a lie by treating it as though it is true.
If the story is correct, then it is THEIR job to prove it is. And obviously, they didn't.
I don't actually think that "If they want that for themselves, who am I to say there's something wrong with it?" is sufficient to defend an action or a way of living.
Sure it is, so long as they are not hurting anyone else. Which they are not, obviously.
Not that there's no room for rational criticism of that or any other cultural characteristic, in any culture. But that's not what is going on here. What's going on here is nothing more than sophomoric mockery of beliefs that happen to be different.
There may be a good reason for not passing laws against willful communities, but us expressing our community's dislike of cults and hysteria about sex: a good thing.
Yes, if you want to show yourself to be a closed-minded bigot, as evidenced in the question-begging use of words "cult" and "hysteria," sure, it's good to express such dislikes.
What's so different about what you are doing than what many of them do when they look down on your immoral wantonness? The "fact" that you are "right" and they are "wrong?" Yeah, right. Pull the other one.
The "fact" that you are "right" and they are "wrong?"
Pretty much, this is it. Just because we're liberals, doesn't mean we don't have values.
Sure it is, so long as they are not hurting anyone else. Which they are not, obviously.
Well, if they're lying to their students that Harvard and Yale aren't accredited, they may be harming someone by leading them to think that they're receiving a well-respected education.
Mockery isn't a substitute for reasoned discourse, but we're not debating a policy initiative that would ban Pensacola, and really, "making eye babies" is a pretty funny-sound phrase in any case.
You may just have a higher standard for the words "compelling evidence" than I do.
Yes, probably. My standards are very high ... as, in the case of science, they should be.
But basically, I hate being wrong, and so if there's a reasonable chance something isn't true, I remain skeptical. And there's plenty of reason to think man-caused global warming is not happening.
(Still, on global warming and hurricanes, this has suggestive value).
Well, I've seen studies and experts saying precisely the opposite, so ... compelling, it is not, to me (note: I normally don't say "to me" because "compelling" already implies subjectivity). Nor is it suggestive of anything, except for the notion that there's a difference of opinion.
As for Pensacola, we don't know that those stories are correct, but we do have testimony (from Urple) that things are pretty extreme there.
Sure. And I wasn't saying differently. And as I noted, I dated a girl who later went there, so I know something of it, as well. But why should I believe Abel Harding when he says that he was "directed" to say that Harvard and Yale were not accredited? That's a very serious claim -- as noted, probably actionable fraud, if true -- and there's nothing more than his word to back it up, and I don't know him or his motives. So I will not believe it is true.
There's a lot more evidence for man-caused global warming than there is for Pensacola directing students to lie about Harvard's and Yale's accreditation. :-)
Hey, Pudge, most of the people here may be liberals, but many of them are very nice people who will debate more of less respectfully even with conservatives (like me). Chill. Be nice. Hate the sin but love the sinner.
There are named sources for the two anecdotes I cited in 56. And for a college to suggest that you could die if you drop out, because God won't want you anymore; well, what would it take for you to count something as a cult?
Pretty much, this is it. Just because we're liberals, doesn't mean we don't have values.
What LB said. People who look down on me for immoral wantonness aren't wrong because the way I live my life is immune from criticism; they're wrong because the content of what they're saying is wrong.
Not that there's no room for rational criticism of that or any other cultural characteristic, in any culture.
Lord. You're right; what someone wants could just never be constructed by the dominant culture, against their interests even. Impossible! And were such a crazy counterfactual thing to occur, it would be totally immune from criticism. A woman who wants her foot bound is just as free as one who wants a comfortable shoe.
Hey, there's a PCC alumna in the House of Representatives!
Pudge, any organization that condemns Bob Friggin' Jones University for being insufficiently literalist has earned whatever sophomoric mockery is coming their way. Bonkers is as bonkers does.
66 posted without seeing 64. Anyway, believe or don't believe as you like, but it looks as though you want more evidence for your beliefs than any of us, or any normal newspaper, is likely to be able to supply. If you place a much higher utility on avoiding false belief than you do on gaining true belief, that makes sense. I don't think it's very practical, though. Anyway, lunchtime. HAND.
Pretty much, this is it.
Right. Which is why I don't take the notions seriously, and chalk them up to mere bigotry. You hate what you perceive are their values.
Just because we're liberals, doesn't mean we don't have values.
I never implied otherwise. I would admit far more quickly and readily that neither liberals nor conservatives corner the market on ethics or values. While I am a conservative by most standards, I don't for a moment believe that my ethics or values are higher than a liberal's.
Heck, for the most part, we have the same values, in all liklihood. They just express themselves in different ways.
You and I both agree -- probably -- that the U.S. should have a strong and effective national defense; that slavery and racism are wrong; that freedom and charity are two of the highest values; and so on. That we disagree about the details does not mean one of us is a better person than the other, let alone that we have significantly different values.
I just realized I misread you, pudge. So I'll revise: what's going on here is, precisely, criticism of a cultural characteristic.
There are named sources for the two anecdotes I cited in 56.
Right, but no proof that what they are saying is true. Again, the accreditation claim is a very serious one, and it is absolutely irresponsible to believe it is true based on nothing more than one example of hearsay.
And for a college to suggest that you could die if you drop out, because God won't want you anymore; well, what would it take for you to count something as a cult?
I'd have to believe the claim that it happened, first. And then I'd need to understand the context in which it was said. After that I could make a reasonable judgment.
You hate what you perceive are their values.
No, I don't "hate" their values. I think their values are hilarious.
71: At this point, Wiener sums it up in 70 -- the story doesn't appear to me inherently incredible. If it's false, of course, PCC should demand a retraction. But you and I don't appear to be arguing about anything more substantial than the standard of evidence to be applied in conversation -- I'm willing to take what I read in a respectable publication as true, for the sake of argument, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, whereas you don't appear to be.
People who look down on me for immoral wantonness aren't wrong because the way I live my life is immune from criticism; they're wrong because the content of what they're saying is wrong.
You do realize you're just saying "I'm right because I say so," don't you? Just checking.
Pudge, any organization that condemns Bob Friggin' Jones University for being insufficiently literalist has earned whatever sophomoric mockery is coming their way.
Ditto.
what's going on here is, precisely, criticism of a cultural characteristic
No, it's not. It's mockery, not criticism.
But it's critical mockery! With additional hilarity in the form of even funnier stories about the place from some of our commenters.
Surely uncharitable ridicule is the purest form of criticism.
There was an assertion above that trolling may be taking place in this thread. I would need to see more evidence that it is in fact taking place; until then I will remain skeptical and make no further comment.
You do realize you're just saying "I'm right because I say so," don't you? Just checking.
Or, "I've considered my position and am willing to argue, when criticized, that the supposed basis for the criticism is mistaken."
You seem to be suggesting that the standard for forming any belief should be as high (or almost so) as the standard a court of law uses in criminally punishing people. Why in the world would one think this?
it looks as though you want more evidence for your beliefs than any of us, or any normal newspaper, is likely to be able to supply
Perhaps.
I confess here that my degree is in journalism, and I've studied these issues a great deal over the years, and my standards are very high, indeed. However, in this particular case, high standards are not required for lacking belief.
If you place a much higher utility on avoiding false belief than you do on gaining true belief, that makes sense. I don't think it's very practical, though.
I think willingly believing something you cannot possibly have significant reason to actually believe in is entirely impractical.
I am not asking for metaphysical certainty. But, again, you are basing your belief on nothing more than single examples of hearsay from people you've never heard of and know nothing about.
To bring the NYT example up again, those stories by Judith Miller about WMD contained far more reason to believe in them than some of these Pensacola allegations do: sure, they used an unnamed source, but it was via a more reputable news organization, with purportedly corroborating claims, and this source claimed firsthand knowledge rather than citing hearsay.
Was it "practical" to believe those NYT stories? I don't think so. You may disagree. :-)
LizardBreath, when you say, the story doesn't appear to me inherently incredible, you have it backward: we should, as news consumers, demand credibility, not lack of incredibility, for whatever that means. I need a good reason to believe something, not a good reason to not believe something.
I'm willing to take what I read in a respectable publication as true, for the sake of argument, in the absence of evidence to the contrary
That's a shame.
That's a shame.
I expect you'll find reading this blog irritating and unproductive, then. I will certainly find continued discussion of the proper evidentiary standard for forming beliefs irritating and unproductive.
You do realize you're just saying "I'm right because I say so," don't you? Just checking.
Actually, what I'm doing there is explaning the category of umbrage I take if someone calls me wantonly immoral, not explaining the source of the umbrage.
If you want, we can have a long conversation about how sex is a fundamental human drive, and is better expressed than repressed, and how its repression is in fact a mechanism for the oppression of women, as they turned into symbols of temptation and danger, etc., etc. It will be a long conversation. But my belief that my values are better than theirs is well-founded.
Right. Which is why I don't take the notions seriously, and chalk them up to mere bigotry. You hate what you perceive are their values.
It's not bigotry to hate someone's values. It's bigotry to hate some immutable aspect of their person. Really bad values are there to be hated. If someone formed a club where they talked about how much they hated Jews, even if they never told anyone else about it, their values would still be eminently hatable, worthy of scorn and derision in decent society.
My favorites:
"You may not allow the end of your belt to hang down from the belt-loops resembling a phallus."
"You may not put up a picture of unmarried people in physical contact unless they are "little kids." (these are sold in the bookstore)." [They sell little kids in the bookstore?]
"You may not go to a public library."
"You may not sing 'too loud' during prayer group."
"You may not go onto the campus of any other college in the Pensacola area."
Where do I get pants with belt-loops resembling a phallus? (Or, rather, I suppose, a series of phalli.) That sounds like quite the look, although rather specific to rate its own ban.
I'm surprised they allow the belt to pass through the loops, IYKWIM.
There's a little marriage ceremony the belt and the pants have to go through. Of course, you need a separate belt for each pair of pants.
I'd like to point out that one could be a Christian, conservative and STILL find Pensacola to have really fucked up rules.
The rules don't seem to do much to promote morality, so it's weird to offer morality as a defense of the rules.
I mean, unless we're really worried about phallic belts and aborted eye babies.
It's the "lead us not into temptation, but let us think really, really hard about all sorts of implausible ways we might be tempted" principle.
aborted eye babies.
Fifteen years from now, some director of truly bizarre horror movies is going to emerge, and it will turn out he's a PCC alum.
Lizardbreath, abstinence is the pinnacle of virtue, even in marriage. The best PCC students would spurn any pants but these.
It's not the belt-loop, it's the part of the belt , about, what would you say apo, twelve inches longer than it needs to be, sorta swinging free and drooping a bit at the end, when not tucked into loops. I'm excited now.
Tia, belts are required. Check the rules.
I've heard that in some dark, fetid rooms, the men turn their unbuckled belts around, and let them dangle down their--I can hardly bear to say it--their posterior.
From apo's link in 83:
While attending PCC, the number one measurement of your spiritual condition will be how well you obey the rules, and secondly, how much you turn in others who don't obey the rules.
OK, it may be just because I was in high school during the one year when the belt-phallus thing was a fad but I totally know what they're talking about. The guys at the all boys school would buy these extra-long braided leather belts and then tie the end that extended beyond the buckle into a certain type of knot that made it suggestively hang down right in front of their crotch. It was the dumbest fad ever but, at the time, all the guys were doing it and competing to get the longest belts, etc. and they would bounce on their heels when they talked to you to try to get you to look at it. High school boys are idiots, it goes without saying.
It was the dumbest fad ever
That is dumb. I just wrap my penis around my waist.
Tia, belts are required. Check the rules.
Obviously because PCC is not Christian enough! Let us found a new college that will stand as a shining beacon in glorious contrast to the apostates, and the truly pious among the PCC students will rush to our aegis, while PCC withers in the debauched winds of secularism.
In fact, you can use your fleshly lariat to rope the pious students in--that is the Lord's purpose for the gift He gave you.
If you want, we can have a long conversation about how sex is a fundamental human drive, and is better expressed than repressed, and how its repression is in fact a mechanism for the oppression of women, as they turned into symbols of temptation and danger, etc., etc. It will be a long conversation. But my belief that my values are better than theirs is well-founded.
And so too is their belief that theirs are better than yours, well-founded. If you believe otherwise, you're just fooling yourself.
Really bad values are there to be hated.
So you should not complain if someone hates your values. Oh, you say they are not bad? So? They say they are.
Though my degree is in journalism, my current profession is geek, so I'll note: your view of how to treat the beliefs of others is not scalable, though it is redundant.
pudge, you are claiming that I should not engage in critique of someone else's values because they are, by virtue of being values, immune to criticism unless they extend beyond the community. I am claiming that values by their nature are subject to criticism. I am quite aware that the PCC folks also have coherent value systems and are also interested in criticizing mine; that's irrelevant to my point and does not support yours.
Values are beliefs about the world. Just because a belief does not pertain to the objective does not make it unassailable, or exempt from engagement or criticism. If I believe in a way best to live that maximizes human freedom and fulfillment, that demands that I have opinions about how other people live their lives.
LB in 81: I will certainly find continued discussion of the proper evidentiary standard for forming beliefs irritating and unproductive.
Hey, do I make fun of your job?
Everyone else does.
But 81 should include a 'with you' -- that's actually the sort of thing I'll happily talk about all day.
That list of rules is so, so weird. What's up with this: (enclosed in quotation marks in the original) "It is proper, although not required, for a young man to give a corsage to his date and for a young lady to give a boutonniere. It is not appropriate for plants, fruit, stuffed animals, and other such items to be brought to Fine Arts programs." How do I apply for the job of dean there?
Oh Nevermind -- this is the Unofficial PCC site. A lot of the stuff that seemed totally dada is making more sense now. (For some values of "sense".)
Velcro. There's a subsidary rule requiring them to be tossed at one's date from a distance.
(Teach me to skip the introductory paragraphs and go straight for the meat figuring I know from context what to look for.)
My mind also went directly to 104. I would think only wrist corsages would be allowed, anyway, as a corsage pinned to a woman's chest may draw her date's eyes there.
107: You must start by eating a black bean burrito.
(It's the answer to a lot of things.)
110: but I want meat! Can I have chorizo with that?
Tia: pudge, you are claiming that I should not engage in critique of someone else's values because they are, by virtue of being values, immune to criticism unless they extend beyond the community.
No, I am not. Indeed, I said they are not immune from criticism, and you know quite well that I did say that.
What I am saying is that for the most part you are not criticizing. And to the extent any criticism is taking place, it boils down to "it's bad because I said so."
Even when you finally did get to something resembling criticism, when you started addressing what you believe to be their "repressed" sexual drive, such a discussion will still boil down to nothing more than "I have different beliefs from them and I can't prove mine any better than they can prove theirs." You can call this criticism if you want, but to me, it's inane and boring, at best.
it's inane and boring, at best.
And yet, it seems to have held your attention for roughly sixty comments now.
pudge, discussions of values have held the attention of moral philosophers for milennia now in spite of the fact that no one will ever be able to prove that the other person is wrong, only reason more or less persuasively to others. For a while they might have been arguing about what they thought was the revealed truth of the Bible, etc., but even now that many of those moral philosophers have given up on revealed truth they still are interested in talking about questions of value, and proposing that some values are better than others (indeed that seems rather implied by the very "word" value; it has subjective worth at the expense of other conflicting ideas), even if all they'll ever be able to do is argue their case. I'm sorry you find this so boring, but might I suggest you find some other blog to troll, because we're entertaining ourselves quite well.
might I suggest you find some other blog to troll
Don't be so quick to judge, Tia. We don't have any conclusive proof that pudge is trolling.
It seems to me that you, pudge, are objecting to the Unfogged commentators not engaging in their criticism with some imagined third-party defender of the particular values of PCC. But since there are no such defenders present, that sort of discourse would be kind of unproductive, don't you think? Rather, the kind of discourse here is appropriate for a group of people that all share the more or less same level of condemnation of PCC, and are just exploring aspects of it in an entertaining way. I don't see how this is inappropriate. However, if there were someone present defending PCC, whether a regular commenter or not, I'm sure there would be people here happy to engage them politely, and the mocking would tone down a lot. That's just the way things work, ya know?
As for evidentiary standards, I'll just endorse LB's post 75.
118 -- isn't Pudge defending PCC? Or maybe not, maybe he's just criticizing the critics/mockers.
I think showing up on a blog and calling a discussion in progress "inane and boring" is a member of the category trolling, though I know that wasn't the original meaning of "to troll." Also, in 116 quotes should be around "value", not "word" obvs.
Come now, the only evidence we have for this trolling behavior is just some comments on a blog on the notoriously impeachable Internet. Hardly anything to swear by.
You know, you have a point, SB. And really, if I said pudge was trolling, pudge would just say (s)he wasn't, and neither of us would ever be able to prove the other was wrong.
Pudge, stumbled across one of your comments above and wanted to make a point. You are correct, the statement made in the article in regards to accredidation was very serious. That being said, do you honestly think that the author of the article would have included that particular accusation if he wasn't confident it was correct? From what I have been told, the article was extensively researched for months with numerous sources. I was told that the accredidation comment was made by numerous former students without prompting. One is an anomaly, two is intruiging, and three makes a pattern.
Are you meaning to imply that "dating" of some form or another didn't occur in the US until the '20s, up until which a man and woman didn't even kiss (in polite society, anyway) until they were engaged?
I certainly haven't seen the data on this topic. Nevertheless, I question what percentage of society was polite by this definition.