Interesting dicussion with the Professor
I have a college professor who lives next door to me and teaches Political Science. He is a flaming liberal, a green guy and a democrat, but is very respectful of others views and will intellectually discuss any issue. He and I have lots of discussion, and never change our minds.
Yesterday evening, he and I were discussing weed control in the yard, and got off on what chemicals were dangerous to use due to ground water contamination. He then told me the story of how a few years ago he had his students do a protest against the city of Carrollton because they bulldozed an area where Egrets would roost and mate. The city said their waist caused a health hazard to humans and had made several children playing in the area sick, but his issue was they killed the unborn Egrets while they we still in the egg, and that was unforgivable and immoral.
I looked at him and said, "Wait a minute! It's okay with you to abort a human child from the mother's womb, (he's pro-choice) but not to kill an embryo bird in the shell? Isn't that a huge contradiction?"
He said, "You know, I might have to think about that."
At least he listens.[^]
Yesterday evening, he and I were discussing weed control in the yard, and got off on what chemicals were dangerous to use due to ground water contamination. He then told me the story of how a few years ago he had his students do a protest against the city of Carrollton because they bulldozed an area where Egrets would roost and mate. The city said their waist caused a health hazard to humans and had made several children playing in the area sick, but his issue was they killed the unborn Egrets while they we still in the egg, and that was unforgivable and immoral.
I looked at him and said, "Wait a minute! It's okay with you to abort a human child from the mother's womb, (he's pro-choice) but not to kill an embryo bird in the shell? Isn't that a huge contradiction?"
He said, "You know, I might have to think about that."
At least he listens.[^]
0
-
That's some deep thinking right there.[:D] 0 -
The professor is having an epiphany? 
0 -
Unless the bird abandons the nest, it must be assumed the bird wants those eggs to hatch.
To use that line of logic, it would be okay to slit open a pregnant woman's belly and kill the child within because abortion is legal. Death is death, right?
Not really.
Intent counts for a lot within the eyes of the law and morality.0 -
EMM:
Please remember that the Egret Rights Amendment was not ratified by 3/4 of the states, and did not become law. The intent of the birds is not protected.[:p]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dheffley
I have a college professor who lives next door to me and teaches Political Science. He is a flaming liberal, a green guy and a democrat, but is very respectful of others views and will intellectually discuss any issue. He and I have lots of discussion, and never change our minds.
Yesterday evening, he and I were discussing weed control in the yard, and got off on what chemicals were dangerous to use due to ground water contamination. He then told me the story of how a few years ago he had his students do a protest against the city of Carrollton because they bulldozed an area where Egrets would roost and mate. The city said their waist caused a health hazard to humans and had made several children playing in the area sick, but his issue was they killed the unborn Egrets while they we still in the egg, and that was unforgivable and immoral.
I looked at him and said, "Wait a minute! It's okay with you to abort a human child from the mother's womb, (he's pro-choice) but not to kill an embryo bird in the shell? Isn't that a huge contradiction?"
He said, "You know, I might have to think about that."
At least he listens.[^]
But Danny, how can that unborn child be an American covered under the Constitution since it has never set foot on American soil or even a natural born American? [;)]
Your professor is guilty of not thinking things through to the logical conclusion. [:p]0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
But Danny, how can that unborn child be an American covered under the Constitution since it has never set foot on American soil or even a natural born American? [;)]
What does that have to do with bird eggs? And, what does killing any child in the womb have to do with that childs citizenship?
You're try to bring up and old argument about two born children already out of the womb and living. One a US citizen, and one not, and here illegally. They are handled differently because one has guarenteed rights under the constitution of this nation, the other has none of those rights.
Let it go. You've stretched it to the point of snapping and we love you too much for that to happen to you.[}:)]
You sure spend a lot of time trying to conect dots that aren't even on the same page. You must be pretty bored.[;)]0 -
ohhhhh cripes...here we go again... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by BlackRoses
ohhhhh cripes...here we go again...
If you had seen the look on his face, you would have laughed yourself silly.[^]0 -
Don,
Not true. In Egret vs. Wallenstein, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that birds, specifically nesting birds within the continental United States, have the same rights as visiting marsupials which, in Echidna v. Cho, 1838, were given the status of "intentional creatures by the law of the land," meaning that eggs for lunch is okay, too.
I hope that clears things up once and for all![:p][:D]0 -
I just finished my masters degree in history, attended 3 universities and 1 city college and found 2 somewhat conservative professors in that time...in the history department. Leftist professor has almost become a redundancy especially in poli-sci departments. They aren't pro-choice about allowing other points of view in the class for the most part. There are exceptions, but I didn't encounter many. And how is it they never hire conservative, libertarian, and other types of viewpoints? 0 -
well there aren't 6.6+ billion egrets in the world either. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by NOTPARS
I just finished my masters degree in history, attended 3 universities and 1 city college and found 2 somewhat conservative professors in that time...in the history department. Leftist professor has almost become a redundancy especially in poli-sci departments. They aren't pro-choice about allowing other points of view in the class for the most part. There are exceptions, but I didn't encounter many. And how is it they never hire conservative, libertarian, and other types of viewpoints?
This man is as liberal as they come, but he is open to, and wants to hear all views, even if he doesn't agree. He is a great guy, just doesn't want me using "Weed-B-Gone" or I'll polute his ground water.[}:)]0 -
EMM:
Thank you for the correction.
I've always told people that Gunbroker Forums are the best place for information on virtually any subject.[:)]0 -
Well he may be a Dem but he is right about the weed-b-gone and contaminated ground water. 0 -
for dheffley: That is great news. Maybe you can work with him. I had some real feminist professors, some were a lost cause and some I got along with real well. I think when he listens to your view, your rationale, you are going to make sense to him over time. Is he young or older? Maybe engage him in talks about hunting or shooting and so forth, see if he is open to going to the range. That is what I did with a liberal anti-gun college buddy and it worked...sort of. Almost all of my colleagues are liberal to very liberal and I have to get along with them. Some, when they discover I am not liberal, reject me and won't speak to me again. Others, will argue and dialogue but are friendly about it. I figure no sense in offending them or getting into heated discussions, (they love politics and when they discover a conservative, they can't leave them alone), but at least we have a dialogue. So it sounds to me like you are doing a great job! 0 -
Weed-B-Gone or 2,4D does not contaminate ground water, only runnoff water like streams and lakes. Even then, it's degrades quickly.
He has no wells and uses no ground water. We are all on city water. Weed-B-Gone is approved by Texas for use even where ground water is used.0 -
city water generally is pulled from the ground. 0 -
Quote: " But Danny, how can that unborn child be an American covered under the Constitution since it has never set foot on American soil or even a natural born American? ". Sounds like a true "guardhouse lawyer". First, most babies just born here to American citizens never set foot on any soil for a while, they just lay down or are carried, but still considered citizens. Second, with all the "birth control" ways, it seems unheard of that abortion is needed except in a very few cases. It is the lazy way out for not accountable for their
actions. Like saying "I didnt know the gun was loaded". I feel that most of us gun owners are accountable for our shooting actions, or face
charges. Why not the same for unwanted pregnancy. Damn if I want as a
taxpayer to pay for someones stupid "gun accident" or someones stupid
"pregnancy accident".0 -
quote:Originally posted by dheffley
I have a college professor who lives next door to me and teaches Political Science. He is a flaming liberal, a green guy and a democrat, but is very respectful of others views and will intellectually discuss any issue. He and I have lots of discussion, and never change our minds.
Yesterday evening, he and I were discussing weed control in the yard, and got off on what chemicals were dangerous to use due to ground water contamination. He then told me the story of how a few years ago he had his students do a protest against the city of Carrollton because they bulldozed an area where Egrets would roost and mate. The city said their waist caused a health hazard to humans and had made several children playing in the area sick, but his issue was they killed the unborn Egrets while they we still in the egg, and that was unforgivable and immoral.
I looked at him and said, "Wait a minute! It's okay with you to abort a human child from the mother's womb, (he's pro-choice) but not to kill an embryo bird in the shell? Isn't that a huge contradiction?"
He said, "You know, I might have to think about that."
At least he listens.[^]
and he'll think about it, contact NARAL, think about it some more, and rationalize that it's OK for a woman to abort a fetus because it's HER "choice" and HER body, whereas the egrets were at the mercy of the bulldozers. Count on it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
Don,
Not true. In Egret vs. Wallenstein, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that birds, specifically nesting birds within the continental United States, have the same rights as visiting marsupials which, in Echidna v. Cho, 1838, were given the status of "intentional creatures by the law of the land," meaning that eggs for lunch is okay, too.
I hope that clears things up once and for all![:p][:D]
do you have cites for these cases so I can Shepardize them and se if they're still good law?[:D][:p][;)]0 -
Even a blind hog sometimes finds an acorn.Danielle 0 -
Sounds as if this environmentally conscious gent has just offered to come over and hand weed your lawn. I mean, it's for the sake of the children, right?[:p] 0 -
Liberals usually have a train wreck of logic when going from point A to point B. Take guns for example. 84 million peaceful, lawful American gun owners caused absoutely no problems or crimes with their guns last year. If ANY other large group that works with or possesses things that can be dangerous had such a good safety record that would make front page news. But for the anti-gun liberals, it that safety record is just ignored.
And to make matters worse, since only the violent criminals, who ignore any and all gun laws, are causing gun crime problems, for some reason the liberals only solution is to pass yet another layer of anti-gun laws. Laws that the violent criminals will continue to ignore and laws that will only oppress the lawful gun owners.
I guess it is just too sensible to try and stop the violent criminals from committing gun crimes by passing a law that only effects those criminals. Something like saying that any violent criminal, who has a history of criminals violence, and commits a gun crime will get mandatory death or at least mandatory life in prison. But of course for the liberal viewpoint, that is just too harsh on the poor criminals so it is easier for those liberals to pass more and more strict gun laws that only oppress lawful gun owners.0 -
quote:Originally posted by NOTPARS
for dheffley: That is great news. Maybe you can work with him. I had some real feminist professors, some were a lost cause and some I got along with real well. I think when he listens to your view, your rationale, you are going to make sense to him over time. Is he young or older? Maybe engage him in talks about hunting or shooting and so forth, see if he is open to going to the range. That is what I did with a liberal anti-gun college buddy and it worked...sort of. Almost all of my colleagues are liberal to very liberal and I have to get along with them. Some, when they discover I am not liberal, reject me and won't speak to me again. Others, will argue and dialogue but are friendly about it. I figure no sense in offending them or getting into heated discussions, (they love politics and when they discover a conservative, they can't leave them alone), but at least we have a dialogue. So it sounds to me like you are doing a great job!
If you want to bug those liberals, mention what I mentioned to a teary-eyed, snivling anti-gun, anti-hunting liberal at work. She was ranting about guns and hunting when I saidto her that we are ALL hunters. She stopped and looked at me with a surprised look so I continued by saying "Some of us hunt in the wild and others hunt at the meat isle at the grocery store." She hasn't ever said another word to me against guns or hunting.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
24 comments