06-16-2011, 10:50 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2011, 11:25 AM by FireIceTalon.)
I refuse to read any of his posts at this point. And it has nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with him (there are several posters in this thread who I disagree with and don't have ignored), and everything to do with that I dislike like him as a person. The best he could ever expect from me regarding anything about him is indifference. I rarely say this about someone Ive never even met, but even since I signed up here years ago I always thought his posts and manner were rather along the lines of something resembling douche baggery. But his recent antics basically earned himself a one-way ticket to my sh*tlist. I can't stand people who think they know it all, then anyone who sees otherwise is automatically stupid or ignorant. He is, at the very least, disrespectful and condescending, arrogant (though he certainly has nothing to be arrogant about), if not downright rude. And first impressions, as you know, pretty much make or break almost any initial meeting (formal or otherwise). Im sure he feels the same about me. But quite frankly, I dont give a damn. Im not the only one who feels this way about him either, believe me. Ive talked to more than a handful of individuals on Bnet that no longer post here specifically because of him. Anyways....
If your complaint is about the length, talk to the professor, not me lol. I simply followed instructions. Dont get me wrong, im the first to question authority and I know how to think for myself, but in this case, his expectations I thought were fairly reasonable. Besides, you dont really have much choice, when your grade is on the line. This particular professor was perfectly fine with you disagreeing with him (so long as you could back it up), but not following his instructions would hurt your grade substantially. Basically, this paper was to consist of 2-3 pages of discussing a political thinkers ideas, another 2-3 pages of these theories applied in modern society, and finally 2-3 pages more providing and discussing specific examples. I combined the application of the theories and the examples together. Maybe this seems like why its not clear? I dont know, but I felt this was the most logical way of doing it so the reader wouldnt have to flip back and forth between discussion of application and examples. And because Rawls theory applies to politics, economics, and social structures, I wanted to cover all three but separately to maintain flow. *shrugs*
One other thing, upon receiving this paper as an assignment, I actually knew very little about Rawls and had only read bits and pieces of some of his work in a prior philosophy class I took. Initially I was going to do this paper on Marx, but decided against it because I wanted to challenge myself on a theorist that interested me but yet I knew little of. Besides, half the class chose Marx for their paper, heh. Even though we covered Rawls in the course, my paper was done before our discussion of him. So this paper was a learning process for me since I completely relied on my own research, rather than on class discussions and notes to give me prior knowledge as starting point for the paper.
If your complaint is about the length, talk to the professor, not me lol. I simply followed instructions. Dont get me wrong, im the first to question authority and I know how to think for myself, but in this case, his expectations I thought were fairly reasonable. Besides, you dont really have much choice, when your grade is on the line. This particular professor was perfectly fine with you disagreeing with him (so long as you could back it up), but not following his instructions would hurt your grade substantially. Basically, this paper was to consist of 2-3 pages of discussing a political thinkers ideas, another 2-3 pages of these theories applied in modern society, and finally 2-3 pages more providing and discussing specific examples. I combined the application of the theories and the examples together. Maybe this seems like why its not clear? I dont know, but I felt this was the most logical way of doing it so the reader wouldnt have to flip back and forth between discussion of application and examples. And because Rawls theory applies to politics, economics, and social structures, I wanted to cover all three but separately to maintain flow. *shrugs*
One other thing, upon receiving this paper as an assignment, I actually knew very little about Rawls and had only read bits and pieces of some of his work in a prior philosophy class I took. Initially I was going to do this paper on Marx, but decided against it because I wanted to challenge myself on a theorist that interested me but yet I knew little of. Besides, half the class chose Marx for their paper, heh. Even though we covered Rawls in the course, my paper was done before our discussion of him. So this paper was a learning process for me since I completely relied on my own research, rather than on class discussions and notes to give me prior knowledge as starting point for the paper.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)