Wow, Brian! Nothing like an ad hominem attack to take the discussion to
the next level of intellectual heft and seriousness. With my middle
initial included no less!
I think your conclusions are absurd, both of my position(s) and about
the environment you're supposedly examining so clearly. Yes, I did
(apropos "Occupy Student Debt") argue against that movement. I don't
think it's a "moral obligation" for spoiled kids to pay for their
expensive educations. I think people have a moral obligation to pay
their debts and not just walk away from them because they've
intellectualized a rationale for why they shouldn't have to owe the debt
any more. Nor do I think there isn't a problem in (higher) education--I
just don't think that abandoning debt is the answer to that problem.
It's pretending that Robin Hood-ism is the same thing as actual social
But that's the last battle. In this one, I'm not neutral. Far from it. I
just find some of the attitudes and positions articulated here and
elsewhere to be a whole lot of intellectual wankery--more words than
actual action to help the people who really need help. It's a lot easier
to attack verbally people like Conard than it is to close the laptop and
go out and find someone who needs help and actually help them.
> On 05/03/2012 04:40 PM, Sascha D. Freudenheim wrote:
>> My point is that I don't think over-generalizing from Conard's absurd
>> comments is necessarily very helpful. He's one guy. He's entitled to his
>> opinions, however ignorant we think they are. But there are people with
>> significantly more complex relationships to the world(s) of ideas, art,
>> culture, and wealth. Koch is one of them. I don't agree with most of his
>> political views, but he is evidence that there are people whose
>> motivations as part of the 1% are not as simple-minded as Conard's--and
>> not as simple as the rest of us often assume.
> You know, Sascha, I am afraid you are the very example of the person
> whose opinions should no longer count in intellectual debates. Because
> you are unable to take a stand. You are unable to even see the ground
> you are standing on.