Eww, more Harvard Right to Life posters
Harvard Right to Life posters have bombarded my home. Wherever I go, I see the message from the fictional egg named Elena. In response, I think I have a right to not see that crap on my way to breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The plastering is annoying for two distinct reasons. Let's examine them:
(1) I pass no more than 4 separate posters on my way from room to dining hall. Why would I need to read the same thing on every flat surface? Most posters advertise meetings, events, etc., but not these posters, oh no. Which brings me to the other qualm.
(2) The posters are big rectangles with a photo of a fertilized egg undergoing first division, kiddy drawings, and a manufactured quotation from the unborn child, Elena, saying she's alive and underneath, the words, "A person is a person no matter how small." Is that really necessary? This has nothing to with pro-choice vs. pro-life. I wouldn't want to read anything of the sort on the house announcement boards. For example, I wouldn't want to read, "Abortion is great, if we didn't have it, we'd have more babies up for adoption. A child deserves loving parents." Or something stupid like that.
Ethically charged posters like that have no place in common spaces. Quite simply, if one is pro-choice, they make you uncomfortable and annoyed. If one is pro-life, you're already on the bandwagon. This sort of poster achieves nothing but wasting the paper and wasting my time.
I would never argue that Harvard Right to Life should not be allowed to poster saying whatever they wish, I just wish they'd understand that no one wants to see it; they simply galvanize people away from their camp. It's like if one of the Islamic groups on campus postered saying, "If you portray Mohammed, you are sinning against Islam." Some things aren't suited to cute posters with girly fonts and doodles. Some things don't serve a real purpose. I'm sure they want to be proactive, but maybe they stick to requesting to have their $1 UHS fee for elective abortion refunded.
EDIT (3/15): This post has been linked to by several pro-life groups and quoted out of context way too many times. This is rant. It's not meant to be taken seriously as an ideological stance. The message is this: The posters are annoying, not because of the pictures or the message (they don't bother me), but because there are lots of them and because they're stupid. Stupid because I don't have a personal affection for talking-fetuses or the crayola font. Before you read this and call it 'bigotry' or whatever powerful language you choose, at least try reading the rest of the posts about this topic to decide. This wasn't about whether abortion is murder, it was about whether or not the posters served a purpose or could make any headway. I believe that when I said the posters would be ineffective, I was right.
(1) I pass no more than 4 separate posters on my way from room to dining hall. Why would I need to read the same thing on every flat surface? Most posters advertise meetings, events, etc., but not these posters, oh no. Which brings me to the other qualm.
(2) The posters are big rectangles with a photo of a fertilized egg undergoing first division, kiddy drawings, and a manufactured quotation from the unborn child, Elena, saying she's alive and underneath, the words, "A person is a person no matter how small." Is that really necessary? This has nothing to with pro-choice vs. pro-life. I wouldn't want to read anything of the sort on the house announcement boards. For example, I wouldn't want to read, "Abortion is great, if we didn't have it, we'd have more babies up for adoption. A child deserves loving parents." Or something stupid like that.
Ethically charged posters like that have no place in common spaces. Quite simply, if one is pro-choice, they make you uncomfortable and annoyed. If one is pro-life, you're already on the bandwagon. This sort of poster achieves nothing but wasting the paper and wasting my time.I would never argue that Harvard Right to Life should not be allowed to poster saying whatever they wish, I just wish they'd understand that no one wants to see it; they simply galvanize people away from their camp. It's like if one of the Islamic groups on campus postered saying, "If you portray Mohammed, you are sinning against Islam." Some things aren't suited to cute posters with girly fonts and doodles. Some things don't serve a real purpose. I'm sure they want to be proactive, but maybe they stick to requesting to have their $1 UHS fee for elective abortion refunded.
EDIT (3/15): This post has been linked to by several pro-life groups and quoted out of context way too many times. This is rant. It's not meant to be taken seriously as an ideological stance. The message is this: The posters are annoying, not because of the pictures or the message (they don't bother me), but because there are lots of them and because they're stupid. Stupid because I don't have a personal affection for talking-fetuses or the crayola font. Before you read this and call it 'bigotry' or whatever powerful language you choose, at least try reading the rest of the posts about this topic to decide. This wasn't about whether abortion is murder, it was about whether or not the posters served a purpose or could make any headway. I believe that when I said the posters would be ineffective, I was right.
Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006
16 Comments:
Yo do realize that you are whining?
You need to grow up.
Sure, why not. It's a rant. You think I lose sleep over pro-life posters? They don't matter to me personally. No, I just thought that the posters probably wouldn't go over well with some students. Lo and behold, I was right. I've read the message board from the "free republc" and I'm pretty sure I see more angry "whining" people expressing their conservative views than myself.
Posting anonymously on a blog with an insult and no substance certainly displays an incredible amount of maturity. Congrats.
If the posters make you uncomfortable than their purpose has been achieved. Just maybe, they might cause you to THINK. Use your mind. That, after all, is why you gained entrance to the allegedly prestigious halls of Harvard. The biology is clear -it's a human being, just at a different stage of development. That is scientific and rational and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. The developmental photos make that point.
Where religion and ethics come into play is in how we choose to treat/care for other human beings. You don't want to see ethically charged posters in common spaces? Perhaps, if I may be so bold as to suggest, that is exactly the kind of attitude that is wrong with Harvard. Ethics IS important. A lack of ethics leads all kinds of problems, not just abortion, but also problems like Enron and Nazi Germany. Simply emptying the common space of ethics will not leave us with a workable ethic, which is how human beings live together as a society. Nature abhors a vacuum, and something is going to fill that vacuum. I'd much prefer it was a well thought out ethic, rather than one to which our allegedly best and brightest have never paid any attention.
You may be right, though I don't agree that we need posters to have ethics. I think discussion breeds ethical responsibility, not propaganda. Posters alienate people more than they make them actually think. Like I said, I don't have a big problem with them personally, I've just seen how ineffective they really are.
I think it a bit bold for you to assume that my view is what is "wrong with Harvard." I don't think my particular comment is indicative of a lack of morality at Harvard. My point was that there is no chance of an ethical vacuum. Nazi Germany is not going to happen at a school that has a popular movements for worker's rights, divestment from Sudan, and even a change from Coca-Cola to Mecca Cola.
Ethics are already a part of the classroom, which is why I've said that forcing a one-sided discussion is not a good solution. That's true for any message, not just fetal development. I'm pretty sure I think plenty. And we do discuss serious issues in our common spaces, but we do so on our own terms, and that's why it's effective. Hell, I'm in a class right now called "Bioethics," and I think you'd be happy to know a good portion of the class doesn't support stem cell research.
Oh, and stop using the word allegedly. It doesn't help your argument.
Of course, you don't see why you need posters to have ethics. You don't. What you need them for is to remind you that this is an issue that needs to be discussed and not one that can continue to be ignored. You make mention of the holocaust in the Sudan, and that is certainly an ethical and moral issue worthy of attention, but abortion has killed approximately 40 million children in this country since it was legalized. That's not a moral and ethical issue similarly deserving of attention? I think that the bottom line is that it's easier to see dead people when someone else is doing the killing (Sudan), rather than when it's your own society that's responsible (abortion). The posters attempt to put a face on these unborn babies by showing you photos of their development in the womb. The posters say that they are no less deserving of your attention than are the children in Sudan.
I think there is a chance of an ethical vacuum. I was not thinking of Harvard, in particular, but of the Ivies in general. (I should have been more specific.) People like Peter Singer are who I had in mind. Of course, he is at Princeton, but most universities now have their share of the same ilk, including many Catholic universities.
As for one sided discussions, we're having one, aren't we? This, per se, disproves the notion of the posters provoking a one sided discussion. I'm sure you think plenty too :) - the posters simply serve as a reminder that there is another issue out there that deserves your attention. Maybe you should ask yourself the question why you don't want to be reminded about this issue?
It's good that you're in a bioethics class, although it depends on what is being taught. I actually support stem cell research. What I oppose is embryonic stem cell research. Remember that stem cell research is a big category, which includes adult stem cells, placental stem cells, as well as embryonic stem cells. (There one more kind of stem cell, but can't remember its name at the moment.) Adult stem cells have cured a lot of diseases.
I specifically used the word "allegedly" because I don't consider Harvard prestigious just because it's Harvard. Prestige can be lost depending on what is produced. In the case of a university, the kind of education provided is paramount to maintaining that prestige. Ethics are an important component in that education.
Before you ask, my college football team used to play your college football team. Nice stadium, but darned uncomfortable seats! :)
I think you're stuck on the notion that "I" don't want to be reminded of the issue. But in reality, I've said nothing of the sort. I've questioned the effectiveness of talking fetus posters. I've questioned the absolute number of them (too many). I have, and most people here have, no problem discussing my views on abortion.
You absolutely must remember that many people don't see abortion as murder, so the idea of treating it as genocide does not resonate with people who hold the opposing viewpoint. Biology is clear in that the embryo is human life. That has not been in question for decades. However, many people don't see it as a full-fledged human person. There is a difference. Many many people would categorically reject the moral equivalency of equating genocide Sudan with abortion or embryonic stem cell research or IVF practice etc.
I can't agree with you that there is a chance of an ethical vaccuum. It's a huge leap with very little evidence to support it. Like I said before, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Harvard is producing graduates devoid of ethics in any way, nor do I see how the general reaction to this poster (which is to say no reaction) leads me to think that Harvard students are intolerant. It's just a massive assertion.
Whether or not you view Harvard as prestigious or not is irrelevent. The point is that adding conditional words like diverts attention from what you're trying to say and weakens your argument.
I should have clarified, I was referring to embryonic stem cells (but that's pretty obvious, since that's the type for which there is controversy). Only embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. While adult stem cells are useful, they do not offer the same capabilities.
I'm not sure why I would have asked, but I agree: The stadium is incredibly uncomfortable.
We're having a one-sided discussion?
Are we having a one sided discussion? I don't think so. There are always two sides to a discussion, although not always two right answers.
I can't speak to whether there are too many posters on the Harvard campus. I'm not there. I left Massachusetts twenty years ago. I've seen the reproductions on line. I think they are cute and thought provoking.
It is true that biology proves the fetus/embryo is a human life. Our laws typically provided that protection because of our status as human beings, based on our common biology. Only in the last century was there a resort to a legal - not a biological - definition of "person". If a legal definition is going to be used, the ways that "personhood" can be defined are almost limitless. Human beings can then be "defined" right out of their humanity and out of the protection of the laws, which is precisely what happens to those who are the most vulnerable: the unborn and those in PVS. This is precisely why the abortion debate is related to euthanasia. Ethics!
Many people might reject equating the Sudan genocide with the genocide of abortion. Those same people, however, have created or perpetuated an entire class of human beings that no longer receive the protection of our laws: the unborn and those in PVS. These human beings can now be killed at will (less so for PVS). The shoe fits.
Those are the cold, hard facts. They don't make people feel good about themselves - nor should they.
I think it's time this discussion stopped. This site is a not a forum for a debate on euthanasia or abortion, it is a site about the school I attend. There are plenty of places where this discussion can take place, and while I'm happy to entertain comments and criticism, this discussion has extended far beyond the scope of my original post (which has to do with practical issues of postering and not the ethics of abortion).
You and I are in a dialogue, which is what makes these posts a discussion. Posters are not speech, and thus they cannot directly be responded to except through more posters or official statements. That is not true dialogue.
Though you clearly care much about the topic, your interpretation of "cold hard facts" leaves many holes and much to be desired. Personhood is the ethical contruct on which people make moral choices, not simply life. And yes there are many definitions, which is why it is not simply a black and white issue. You've discounted more viewpoints out of hand than I can count. Regardless, thank you for taking the time to write your thoughtful responses.
Seems like you're having to put up with the usual assaultive comments of the prolife crowd. Thank you for raising the issue. Advertising is meant to prevent people from thinking, not encourage it. That is very much what these people are about, that and forming a social group to reinforce mutual agreement. I am from Texas, and this stuff looks just as silly from here. The difference is that our nut groups prefer neon.
Congrats on the cool head you show in your responses.
I'm not sure how I might put this in a polite manner. I'm a highschool junior that has been informed that Harvard is a prestigious institution. However, in the end the evidence I have seen of students does not speak so highly. No, I'm not demeaning Harvard students - rather, I'm adjusting my estimates and expectations.
You see, for one thing it's a wonder that irrational fallacies that exist in the Prolife argument are totally ignored, as if the age of the death of human thought and reasoning has come, when it comes to abortions. What's worse, I would have expected every single Harvard student to be able to think critically in the highest order of thinking, that is, evaluation. It doesn't have to be thematic or formal or philosophically deep or anything - just straightforward, unbridled human reason in the form of analysis and evaluation, of differentiating between truth and non-truth, rather than utilizing lower orders of thought to differentiate only between A and B, that is, to recognize, identify with the recognized in some measly way, and then support it with no reasoning but only sentiment and the statement "I believe" or "I feel." Such humans need not be humans - animals can choose to act happy or sad, for or against. Society doesn't need leaders that know not of any value in the world, which by definition requires evaluation, not recognition.
Instead, what do I see? Complaining about posters is fine and all, but the feeling is primitive and limited, uninspired, if you will. You recognize the right to post such messages, which really is regardless of the reasoning involved. Yet instead of stepping up and counter-postering, if you will, making positive use of the same principle of free speech, you rant on a blog that gets juvenile reactions both from students and from outsiders. Of what good is this? Or, more importantly, to where does it lead? Does it not only add to the general muck of rhetoric that causes nothing but more low-order thought? I'm not even talking about taking the blatantly fallacious side of the argument. I'm accusing both sides of not being up to par from a human intellect perspective. Not exactly a welcoming approach, I know, but might you humor a frustrated high school student?
I'm supposed to buy this sort of opinion-voicing, by which I mean managing to slam subject and predicate together - like stating that the abortion issue has killed 40 million children or that a waning of ethical piety has caused an entire class of people to be totally vulnerable to being killed, or on the other side of the argument, being critical of the Pro-life posters, that is, the Texan fellow just simply stating that it looks silly and that such action is indicative of a sort of banding together, of an intent to reinforce fiction by mutal agreement (reading between the lines on all this stuff). Now seriously, it is YOU people, students of Harvard, that should at least be able to name what I have put my finger on - this after-the-fact restatement of conclusions not based on evaluative processes of reason but rather on recognition and shifting biases.
To put it simply, saying so doesn't make it so. Neither does giving examples, in which you also just blow hot air (this is what the SATs teach us to do, but I consider that a standardization of limited intellect). So what does make it so? Of what use is literature, rhetoric, or thought? Does anyone share my lament?
In the end the Harvard kids don't look any more honorable or intelligent than any other college students. You flame each other in blogs, and post the same dated lines of sarcasm as do those with no jobs and no education. In another blog a student declared that material is forgotten over the winter holidays - no different from most schools, just another common mark of lack of discipline. Your writing styles are somewhat developed, but far from mature, and your use of loaded words (especially foul ones) is disfunctional and abusive to their potential. (In layman's terms, I'm fine with using foul language, but in context it only adds to the muck, instead of using that loaded kick to drive a message.)
And don't excuse yourselves as somehow being off-duty as a student of Harvard. That is nothing better than insulting (my father is a Harvard graduate).
Oh, I suppose I'm not much better or much worse. Just another rant, hypocritical in nature (having not written in a form in which my arguments would be structured through logical necessity, but rather writing trash in a slightly more pompous manner than you have). Oh well. At least I'm just a high school student.
RKK (ASIJ)
I'm sorry you think I should have lambasted the fallacies of the pro-life argument. I don't care to. This is not a pro-choice blog nor am I member of Students for Choice. Postering is possibly one of the least fun things to do for student groups on campus, I can assure you that. In fact, posting on a blog does embody the same principles of free speech as postering. It just so happens I enjoy spending a few minutes a day writing for something other than class (and I really hate postering). In the scope of this blog, only the act of postering was what I was commenting on, not the message contained therein. It's not hard for me or most people to argue cogently on important issues. But not every argument should be framed thus. Wait a few more years and you'll realize that the way we write is to be concise and clear. Inflating rhetoric gets you bad grades here. Arguing about abortion is exactly what I wanted to avoid when I made a comment about the posters.
As for the flaming, I haven't seen a single flame traded from Harvard students. The negative posts you've been reading on this site were actually from various pro-life supporters from around the country.
You should re-evaluate your views on Harvard students. We're just people too. Though if I were you I'd also re-adjust what I was looking for student bodies everywhere. I was a bit surprised when I came here with the level of the student body. But I've visited other schools as well and never felt that any other group outshone the students here.
On a side note, because we have our first semster finals after winter break, the fact that students forget material is our particular importance to us. Our biggest grades come after a vacation. If you think we're lazy because students don't want to study over vacation, then that's fine. Personally, I'm with the other blogger. I like to relax, and I'd prefer to have my exams before break so I can do so with a clean conscience.
Maybe I didn't write that clearly enough. You've assumed that I worked up a misperception there, which may or may not indicate that Harvard's student body is a little better off than my extrapolation based on observing several comments that were made by Harvard students, or those claiming to do so through various sites.
Sure, it's probably unfair to narrow my perception of the student body to what information I can obtain pertaining to it. But, alas, it's either that or be entirely ignorant. As for your own blog, I suppose it serves a function, though I personally wouldn't have opened it up to serious discussion if this was supposed to be a relief-through-ranting exercise. The inevitable result is that you have to continue defending your right to comment on posters and such annoyances...I wasn't accusing you of doing a wrong thing, nor was I despairing that you ranted about posters - frankly, I would never care enough to write about them in that manner (that is, at length as a rant). If you get any good out of it, it's worth your time. I'm only being critical because the writing, which you claim is for clarity, in my eyes was nothing more than ordinary. (Not in the sense that you didn't make a formal exposition out of it - those are often just hot air anyway - but more importantly, I was expecting to read something mildly interesting, that being the premise of making public any work that demand attention.)
Really I shouldn't be so critical - after all, if we're taught anything it's that people don't like to be criticized, except those few dissenters.
My question for you is, I suppose, is there any real discussion (not just cogently, to be sure) going on, or is it mostly this sort of thing? If the general atmosphere and thinking is at the level of a rant (which I do not assume it is, but this blog proved a possibility), I would have to be disappointed.
I never said anything about you having to write in a "cogent" manner (by which you mean formal prose), rather than clear, logical, or more perhaps more accurately, compelling material. It's interesting that you've totally dismembered the word from it's meaning, insisting instead that if I "wait a few more years," (as if good writing or comprehension falls into your hands with no effort) and I'll "realize that the way we write is to be concise and clear," as if to be cogent means something else. I have a hard time swallowing this argument, not because of its rather condescending tone, but simply because it makes no sense. Your next sentence clears this up a little by hinting at what you are actually trying to express -
"Inflating rhetoric gets you bad grades here."
Which, of course was not what I recommended when I asked why I don't see people evaluating (or expressing such), but rather simply making empty statements and shifting biases. One of my peeves is that people like to frame such exercises of exchanging hot air as argumentation or literature - at least you only claim a blog entry, and a rave at that. But let me ask you this - in what way is your writing cogent, clear, or concise? From your answer, I gather that you falsely presumed that by doing some evaluating, I meant that I expected "inflated," formal, or "cogent" writing, the last being the only one I saw a lack of. I could reduce your simple reply to the well-known phrase "don't use a long word where a simple one will do," which has a point.
My point is that I would have expected Harvard students to bring something to the table, not add to it's diameter (ugh, please excuse that horrible metaphor). But really, I'm not talking about just your blog, so this isn't entirely right. Really, your blog is quite interesting, if at times disappointing (as things go). I appreciate it. Still, is it really too much to ask? I just wish there were some more bright ideas to read about in an interesting way, even if it's about simple things like postering, although I'm basically deprived and expecting too much from a blog.
"As for the flaming..."
Yeah, as for the flaming. Hmm, well, I've seen some juvenile activity on the Net, and the conclusion in your reply to the first insulting comment counts in my book. No, you didn't call "anonymous" foul names, but your sarcasm at the end is verbatim what I've seen enough times to make me sick, and that's not coming from Harvard students. In other words, I didn't evaluate the first post - I evaluated yours, which I consider juvenile and shocking. Maybe you just meant Harvard students don't do such to each other. (But then, "anonymous" here could be anybody, including a Harvard student.)
Your next paragraph doesn't offer much help. Maybe you think it's a bad thing to expect any meaningful exercise of reason from college students. Some people would certainly agree wtih that, and I'm not saying you do. I certainly don't. In fact, if you mean to tell me that it's a national condition not to be able to write in a compelling manner (or cogently) while in college, or to expect only "clear" and "concise" but not-so-meaningful opinionating, I would suggest that you evaluate whether or not that could be going on in colleges you haven't visited. I'm sure it happens all the time in Harvard - I had, however, hoped that it would be demand of virtually all prose, regardless of the degree of formality. Following the same logic, I had hoped that it would become so natural that a blogger may also display such.
To make an already overbloan discussion over nothing but broken hopes even longer, it really bothers me that you said "Harvard students are people too." Not because I think Harvard students should be scholastic deities (which I don't), but because reason is not automatic, and must therefore be learned. Harvard, I'd hoped, would help this learning. Was I wrong to hope such? You tell me. I interpreted your statement to be an excuse for Harvard students to have fallacies - fallacies (fine by me) including impairment in using strong reasoning skills (not fine by me, and not demanded of an ordinary blog). It's not about other students outshining Harvard students. That happens all the time! (Not that I would say that in one of your rec areas....)
And no, I don't think it's lazy for Harvard students not to study over break. I don't study much over break, but then, I'm in high school. In college, I would study so as not to forget to continue to explore ideas that interest me. If you retain only some of what you've learned, you may have just as well hammered that part of it so that you'd remember that longer, rather than waste some time studying only to forget a portion. But then, some of it is nonetheless not worth worrying about in the long run, so I'm an advocate of slacking off too. Come to think of it, wasn't that your blog that I read it in? Coming back to a semester's worth of material you've already forgotten? What good is having the test early if it functions as an excuse for you to forget a whole semester? Wouldn't having the test after break mean testing that you do retain the knowledge and haven't simply been gliding along on short-term memory? The former is college level. The latter is high-school level. (Well, except those that study painfully hard and retain everything, though I prefer to study only enough to have a vacation and retain most of the semester.)
In the end it all boils down to what we consider to be worthy of coming from Harvard students. Flaming? Nah, it's just juvenile sarcasm! Cogency? Why write well about great ideas when college students everywhere get by on rehashing biases? Study over break? Why not forget everything/much of it instead?
Re-adjust my expectations? That will not be necessary. You don't need to miss vacation to have high expectations. You don't need to write well to be working to improve it. Isn't Harvard for those kind of people?
Of course, I should probably apologize for taking up a huge space with a comment far too long for a blog. I'm sorry. Plus, I'm being a hypocrite, since my writing here is just spur of the moment trash and isn't refined at all. This, this really is just "whining." But I do have something to whine about.
NR (ASI4.25)
To be honest, I'm not really sure where all of that is coming from nor why this has site has drawn your ire. Unfortunately, it's really off-topic. I'm sorry you disagree with my use of the word cogent. I meant exactly what the word means. I found your first (and second) post difficult to follow in several places. To me, it was not clear, logical, or convincing (hence the word choice). Sure, the use a short-word maxim applies too.
Regardless, I hope most people don't sum up my blog with my coverage of the HRL posters. I would have only mentioned them once, but when the story gained some natural coverage, it seemed appropriate to continue. I try to discuss issues that apply to the school for my readers who are interested in something different other than the Crimson editorial page. While I'm happy to respond to your comments, you'd have to email me because your post is far too long to address.
And, no, we don't actually forget everything we've learned over vacation. The schedule is gripe I have mainly because it's different from most other schools. When I make my attempts at humor, however unsucessful, they're usually not meant to be taken literally.
Either way, I'm sorry you've become disappointed with Harvard from your readings. I'd advise that you apply if interested and visit in person to see if the small slice you've seen is indicative of the bunch. I think you'd actually be pleasantly surprised, but I'm biased. Good luck until then.
"A person's a person no matter how small!" By definition, of course. A frog is a frog, no matter how small/large/red/toadlike. A poster is a poster, no matter how absurd.
PPC (ASIP4.25)
Well, no, I know Harvard must have a great deal of good to it, but your blog and a few other sources (I forgot where I read about that bioethics class you happen to be in...but there was an article on that recently...NYT?) indicated some unexpected things for me. And I'm not angry at you, though from my tone I thought you might catch my frustration, which is not the same as ire.
I still think it's perfectly fine to demand cogency in writing and thinking, and it was your dismissal of such as a thing limited to "some arguments" that made me somewhat upset within my frustration:
It's not hard for me or most people to argue cogently on important issues. But not every argument should be framed thus. Wait a few more years and you'll realize that the way we write is to be concise and clear.
You see my point? A cogent argument is inherently clear, and I do not recognize short-cutting logical reasoning as a means of being concise, because such is never comprehensive. How can you have a conclusion, leave out the premises, and call the argument concise? You can be compelling without being logical, but we may disagree whether such is true cogency. You've also, perhaps in an effort to be concise, jumped to several conclusions that have simply been off the mark, like me being angry or disappointed in Harvard as a whole, or seemingly oversimplifying americanphoenix's argument as posters being necessary for ethics. (Sure, I get your point, I think, and I might even read between the lines to see what you may be suggesting implicitly. But, that's no way to come off as somebody who's actually read the comments carefully, and then the volley of "I never said that!"s ensues, like with americanphoenix.) Anyhoo, I had lamented the lack of rational evaluation that I perceive may easily be prevalent, and though not guilty of oversimplification nor of reading carelessly (your humor, like mine, may take an acquired taste), I may certainly be guilty of extremely long posts in which I say too much and get too serious on somebody else's blog. I realize this is rather rude. I'm sorry.
Certainly, you are perfectly right in that commenting on a simple matter of unsightly posters doesn't require a compelling argument, especially as we are not trying to deduce truth here. If the posters are annoying, you saying so has proved it, if we are looking for truth.
My comments are founded on logical grounds, but I have not shown my reasoning. How can you follow if I don't lead? For the most part though, I was just curious if Harvard students regularly do show their evaluative reasoning, as I would expect would be natural.
So no, I'm not disappointed in Harvard as if it's failed miserably nor as a whole. I'm a bit shocked at the articles I've read and your blog, in which you do certainly treat some people with what I seems to me as disrespectful, even though they may have been disrespectful to you. I'm not angry about it, but it's kind of unexpected from a Harvard student - there's no honor or pride in stooping to that level, even if some comment-poster insulted you or allegedly used the word allegedly inappropriately :) . Surely you agree with me there? It's not always in the language being foul - in your case it rarely is - but in the tone.
Recent depictions of other college students have been at times far more unimpressive, while some college students just blow my mind (in a good sense).
Either as a result of my intensity or as a result of your oversimplifying other's statements, or both, we've missed each other a bit. I could say you are worrying that I'm "disappointed" in Harvard, if I were to deliberately misinterpret/oversimplify, but I won't. I understand you perfectly. I thank you for your input from which I have been able to infer a little bit about a little bit (not a "bunch") of Harvard.
Plus, thank you for a positive ending to your last note, rather than bitter sarcasm or such. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure about applying to Harvard quite yet...and if any of the numbers are to be believed, my GPA is at the very least 0.07 points too low (haha). But then, I'm a cynic in some of the meanings of the word.
Excuse me for not emailing...I'm pretty much done ranting.
NT (AIJ4.25)
No worries. And, I think we do use our capacity to reason fairly often.
As for the issue of tone, you're quite right. My mostly snide remarks came with the frustration with hate mail from strangers. I wasn't used to it in the beginning, and I had never expected to draw the pro-life blog community's ire (and it really was ire that time). Also, I do apologize for missing the thrust of your previous comments. Rookie mistakes.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home