quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Pointing out the fact that both sides of the aisle engage in a certain behavior is not minimizing the behavior. You can do one and not the other so it's not essentially the same thing. You claim what Wingracer said is a false equivalence by ascribing to his comments certain unstated intentions but he clarified his position and said he was not trying to minimize any behavior. Yet even after clarification, the misinterpretation is still being attacked.
Accidentally or intentionally misrepresenting Wingracer's position is a straw man argument and i have the suspicion that, for a certain poster, the misrepresentation was intentional in order to present an attack on the alleged dishonest tactics of the right wing.
And I noticed your ad hominem tu quoque, but whatever past straw men I've presented are irrelevant to this discussion. It almost seems as though your'e engaging in the very behavior your'e condemning...
I appreciate the defense. But I would like to point out that now that it has been explained, I can see where there very well may have been a false equivalence in my posts (even leaving out intentions) since there does seem to be at least some distinction between what is being done here and what I have provided as examples of "everyone else" doing it. So I can't really blame them for pointing that out, though perhaps a couple could have done it a lot better like matt and tom. Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: It should be irrelevant. While it would be interesting to know that he was paid by Democrats for his writings, it's still irrelevant from a government transparency perspective. This professor is not governing in any meaningful sense of the word.
Ok, how about coming at it from the other direction. Would you say it would be justifiable to request emails from the democrats instead, specifically looking for any correspondence they may have had with this professor? The people you are requesting info from ARE in government, but the info you are asking for (again in my strictly hypothetical scenario) is exactly the same.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it can also be a reminder that no government employee is beyond scrutiny or reproach.
Frankly, it bothers me to think of university professors as government employees. They work for the university, which is funded in part by the government.
In fact, the University of Wisconsin takes less of a percentage of its funding from the government than Northrup-Grumman does.
quote:Would you say it would be justifiable to request emails from the democrats instead, specifically looking for any correspondence they may have had with this professor?
Absolutely. Fishing expeditions are a long if tiresome tradition.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, it bothers me to think of university professors as government employees. They work for the university, which is funded in part by the government.
Perhaps the more relevant part is that the university is chartered by the government, while Northrop-Grumman isn't. That is, the university was explicitly created as part of the government (note: this wording doesn't mean it was when it was first started, but that at some point an act was taken that made it such). Northrop-Grumman, as not part of the government, must do things such as competitive bidding in order to obtain its funding. The university receives its funding by virtue of being a part of the government.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: You're reading way too much into what was said. Perhaps it merits some discussion but you're so sure of your position and the intentions of others as to be totally unreasonable and unwilling reconsider your position or, at the very least, your approach. Your argument is a stretch. But continue, if you desire, to to slash at the strawman you've conjured.
I am reading nothing into what was said, other than what was said. What I am doing is arguing that what was said is indicative of popular political jargon, and I'm talking about why that is not a good thing. I don't need to know his politics to know what he said, and what he said is clearly a very silly thing to say, and to then think having said it matters, or makes any sense, or helps anyone to understand anything at all.
quote: And really, you need to explain your rationale for coming back from a self-imposed exile just to get pissy about some fictitious republican false-equivalence campaign you've imagined.
No, I don't. I am free to do whatever the hell I please. As do you, and of course it doesn't stop you from being nasty. I'm nasty, but at least I'm not a moral crusader who thinks his excrement doesn't stink. What's your excuse?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Perhaps you are correct orincoro but if so, look at the title of this thread. It seems to clearly attack republicans specifically for something that appears to be a pretty routine occurrence from all sides and not just political parties. Wouldn't that be kind of like a burglar complaining that his house was robbed? Yes it was wrong, but hard to sympathize with him.
And I just tried to back you up by saying you weren't necessarily making a false equivalence argument.
You know I love being right... but I would rather not have the opportunity to be so right so often.
quote:Frankly, it bothers me to think of university professors as government employees. They work for the university, which is funded in part by the government.
Perhaps the more relevant part is that the university is chartered by the government, while Northrop-Grumman isn't. That is, the university was explicitly created as part of the government (note: this wording doesn't mean it was when it was first started, but that at some point an act was taken that made it such). Northrop-Grumman, as not part of the government, must do things such as competitive bidding in order to obtain its funding. The university receives its funding by virtue of being a part of the government.
Well, the important distinction is whether we should consider a university professor, or any employee, a "government employee." As a for instance, in the Czech Republic, the state owns a number of monopolies on planning, transport, and health care. The employees are privately employed, and though their companies serve government agencies and commissions, they are not themselves government apparatus.
I don't know the university thing well enough to say that there's a significant difference here. The state charters the school, but could the employees of the school be reasonably treated as representatives of government policy? It just seems an absurd conclusion, because a fair amount of what tenured university professors actually produce in terms of research is not anything related to official policy, is not treated as official policy, and is not explicitly endorsed by the state (it is tacitly endorsed only by continued funding).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it is pretty clear here (Ontario) that university professors are "public sector employees". http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2011/ How that equates (or not) with whether they are "government employees," I don't have a strong opinion about yet.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the US, public university employees are government employees. What's more, even if they weren't, their university email is the property of the university, and can thus be requested under most state public information laws from the university. And using any non-university email for university business, while common, is typically against university policy, and may (or may not) violate various confidentiality and public record laws (after all, the university is required to do business in public).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Accidentally or intentionally misrepresenting Wingracer's position is a straw man argument and i have the suspicion that, for a certain poster, the misrepresentation was intentional in order to present an attack on the alleged dishonest tactics of the right wing.
You can quit this whole crusader thing of yours anytime.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And using any non-university email for university business, while common, is typically against university policy, and may (or may not) violate various confidentiality and public record laws (after all, the university is required to do business in public).
I've checked into this, and it is not true at any of the state Universities I've worked at. Why do you say its "typical".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about we settle with that I have observed universities where it is definitely the case (at least, there have been specific statements from the policy level of the university administration), and you have observed universities where it is not (out of curiosity, who did you check with? I've found actual knowledge of university policy to be strangely bad at universities at almost all levels, in trying to find out what university policy was on various topics -- copyrights, the email thing, and so forth).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You can quit this whole crusader thing of yours anytime.
Ha Ha. Yes mother.. After all, someone might get their feelings hurt and never come back if their logical fallacy gets called out.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You can quit this whole crusader thing of yours anytime.
Ha Ha. Yes mother.. After all, someone might get their feelings hurt and never come back if their logical fallacy gets called out.
The dripping sarcasm approach goes a little awry when you yourself haven't ever reached the 'never come back' part.
Obviously you really want to be able to pull a good burn on me. You might get it some day. Or you could, as previously mentioned, give this whole thing up, because it's really not working for you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
