As previously mentioned, the weekly assignments in the PoliSci 202 course I’m currently taking is to pick one editorial and one news story, both from daily newspapers, both on the topic of national politics, and break each of them down. The information is then entered into the forum and each student has to comment on three other student’s choices.
Last week, one of my fellow students chose a story on Obamacare’s stepping on the toes of church groups in regards to contraception, taking the side of the government. One of the “facts” that she used in her description of the editorial was that “millions of American women will be denied their reproductive health care rights” if Obama caved in to the pressure from church groups. This figure was mentioned nowhere in the editorial, so she pulled out of the ether somewhere.
I made an objection. Not a huge one. I made no mention that there are no such thing as “reproductive health care rights” and that no one is denying them reproductive health care. Just like if I wanted to work somewhere that is union but don’t want to join the union, then I have to work somewhere else if my state is not a right-to-work state, if a woman wants to have her health insurance covered by her employer, working for a church may be the wrong choice for her.
No. Instead, I stated that the “millions of American women” phrase was hyperbole, because there are only tens of thousands of women who work for churches, but not “millions”.
I was immediately set up by her for “attacking the messenger”, something explicitly prohibited in the forum rules. She didn’t even attempt to say that maybe she had been misinformed or that she had some sort of evidence to prove her numbers.
Nope, I was the bad guy. I was attempting to bully her.
I have been contacted by the professor and warned to be careful in the future forums.
I explained that she was only offended because she got called out on a lie and that my comment was explicitly directed toward the information and not her. I have not yet heard back, but with my current 94% score in the class, I’ll let him dock me the points.
When I said wish me luck in my previous post on this course I didn’t know I’d need so much of it.
You can always take the angle of “you say X – and it doesn’t quite sound correct. Is it hyperbole or do you have a source to cite for that?”
The wrong approach would likely be to ask if OCare would also require covering clitorectomies for folks who’s culture or religion though they were required for young ladies, and if not, what is the difference in principal?
Liberal weenies always get offended. You should get extra credit for doing it with style
You know you live in a priveleged world where people are concerned about “feelings” instead of survival. Obviously the class you are taking is about indoctrination instead of learning. If it were about learning then academic rigor would be enforced and the statement would need to be backed up by data.
But as we have seen even with the politicization of science in the name of “climate change” all prophesied by Ayn Rand, more and more academics are nothing but useful idiots turning out other useful idiots.
Among the things I’ve learned the last week:
I I say the President doesn’t have the authority to order this, I hate women.
If I say the hearing the Democrats tried to take over wasn’t about contraception, I hate women AND don’t want them to have health care.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Pingback: Subconsciously Hoping To Fail? | Random Nuclear Strikes