Probably the greatest email I've ever recieved

[SVTMuscle*]

I got this from my Sustainability class teacher. He is a far left wing lawyer, all about saving the enviroment. Out of 26 kids in the class, I am the only republican determinded to be rich. Here is the email I recieved from him when I guess he had enough

Chris, as always, take this as an attack on your comments and underlying
logic and not upon you as a person.

As usual, your comment helped me form my responses to not just your
views, but those of others people whose thinking baffles me.


Third, as previously mentioned, a majority once thought the earth to be
flat and the center of the universe; scientific data to the contrary
eventually was accepted by a safe majority of the world's educated
population, but you'll still find people who doubt such basics.
According the consensus of the world's scientists (the peer-reviewed
ones), concerns about sustainability and climate change have the same
legitimacy as the earth being round and being in orbit around the sun.
You can doubt such things, but some views - you need to be prepared -
that you have expressed almost make you sound like a flat-earther.
You're free to have such views, but realize that these statements are
beginning to make you sound crazy.

Fourth, I finally thought of the questions to ask to help you
reason-through some of your comments: honestly, really, you say it's
fine to profit and "make the rich richer" and to hell with the
environment and the poor... that's not a completely unheard of
point-of-view... but would you just as easily say it's fine to make
profit off of slavery? Off catching blacks and making them slaves?
People were willing to kill to defend these practices (and later, to
defend segregation).
How about killing Jews or Catholics or Hispanics or Native Americans for
money?
At various times (and even now) slavery and murder are rationalized as
business activities by thousands upon thousands of your fellow humans
(look up statistics on modern slavery and the forced sex labor industry).
My questions all are driving at this: where do you draw the line,
Chris? Really? Is making money, regardless of the externalities or
direct impacts, really the only variable you consider? You'd stop at
whipping another human? But then, it's fine to let someone starve?
No? Then what about cutting taxes for school lunches? Yes? Probably
most people see such decisions on a spectrum (how objectionable actions
or inactions are ***ends on how proximate the harmful impacts are) --
but where you have data that something does harm (or even MAY cause
harm), don't you reconsider? Do you smoke? Drink and drive? If you
don't, why not? Probably because there's a chance of harm (either death
to you or others or of getting caught)... if so, then you have to agree
that you actually DO allow probabilities of harm to you and others
affect your behavior, right?

Fifth, beyond my suspecting that you would draw the line somewhere on
how you make cash, I humbly suggest that you're not driven solely by
cash. For starters, you actually - it seems to me - enjoy these
exchanges. That's a sign you have some intellectual curiosity, or at
least take pleasure in playing the role of provocateur. You also have
an expressed interest in health and health supplements. Anyway, I'll
stop here. But I think you get my point. I don't really think you mean
that ANYTHING is fine so long as it's profitable - the question only
remains, how the heck are you not convinced that there is sufficient
proof of widespread probable death and misery (more than already exists)
that you don't think some business practices or consumer choices are
silly and short-sighted?

[Dude-Man]

the question still remains, how the heck are you not convinced that there is sufficient proof of widespread probable death and misery (more than already exists) that you don't think some business practices or consumer choices are silly and short-sighted?

[SVTMuscle*]

He dosnt get my humor.
I firmly believe there is alot of guys profiting off the death of others, and I think its wrong. He is the type of guy who, if you dont believe in exactly what he says, your the complete opposite.
I firmly believe in getting rich, and if me getting rich invovles the consumption of alot of non-renewable resources (what the class is about) so be it!

[RamyGras]

I guess to judge your professor's e-mail, I would have to read what you sent him. Based on his comments, I'd imagine your e-mail to him may have been quite interesting. I'm interested in what you sent him. Care to indulge?

[SVTMuscle*]

He first sent out an email concerning jobs over the summer for some kids and whatnot, which were all for 'green' companies and 'non profit' enviromentalist jobs...so I replied "hopefully I can get my internship at Exxon!"
and then he sent Their share value increases are amazing. See the recent article on them
in a major business mag.
"We don't deal in moonshine" the current CEO is quoted as saying...
we'll see what the next 20 years bring to the different companies and
their strategies.

Then I replied
So I guess I'm not the only one in the world with my views then =)

Then he sent that novel

[spicyer]

Give him hell. Those liberal tree hugging professors can't ruin everyone!!!!!!!

[spywizard]

that is a old old manner in which to debate.. he's not very good at it..

Apologetics would make him think for a very long time.. And in the end, he would revert to just calling whoever he is arguing with stupid.. he did this in the 1st 3 statements.. so you are obviously stupid..



has he shared with you his sexual preferences yet?? will it be on the exam??

[Big Drez]

that is a old old manner in which to debate.. he's not very good at it..

Apologetics would make him think for a very long time.. And in the end, he would revert to just calling whoever he is arguing with stupid.. he did this in the 1st 3 statements.. so you are obviously stupid..



has he shared with you his sexual preferences yet?? will it be on the exam??

[Lexed]

can u summarize to long to read

[SVTMuscle*]

that is a old old manner in which to debate.. he's not very good at it..

Apologetics would make him think for a very long time.. And in the end, he would revert to just calling whoever he is arguing with stupid.. he did this in the 1st 3 statements.. so you are obviously stupid..



has he shared with you his sexual preferences yet?? will it be on the exam??

I'm gonna reply with "You think if I got enough signatures, I could get Bush to run for the a 3rd term?!?!"

[spywizard]

I'm gonna reply with "You think if I got enough signatures, I could get Bush to run for the a 3rd term?!?!"

hahaaaa...

ask him what it is that brought him to teach?? what value does he add to a text book?? His opinion?? no thanks, i'll keep my $32,000 a year.. just give me the book, i'll pass the exam...

after all.. the world needs ditch diggers..

[SVTMuscle*]

He is an excellent teacher, he is business law professor, he is just very liberal and I dont have his views and we just debate during the class time, its good times honestly because im as far opposite as him

[Stock]

He looks to be reaching with what I believe is called a slippery-slope fallacy with the where does it end senario. Tell him a few basic Philosophy classes will allow him to debate his points better. I'm sure he knows what he is doing, he just wonders if you do...

[Panzerfaust]

The problem is that professors no longer teach, they "preach" an ideology and are there to brain wash every stupid 20 something kid into that BS.

[chest6]

i HATE that.

My political science professor just basically taught us his views. His test questions seem to be all opinionated. We had to read this Liberal ass book and that was basically our final exam..so fvckin dumb..

[Dangerdan]

Damn lawyers. I dont trust any of em.

[Kärnfysikern]

Why is a business law professor teaching sustainability?