![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I dropped PHIL C131 not because I was picking hard-right cues but because I could not pin the professor down on a consistent logic. When pressed for consistency so I could find the pattern so I could replicate it and do the work, the exceptions kept growing exceptions. After wading in to ENGL C101 and remembering the context, I'm going ooooh.
I didn't save the exact passage, but it was basically "scientific studies show that children who are beaten tend to grow up to beat their children". We were asked to if the conclusion follows from the premise necessarily/unavoidably, probably, or they're unrelated. (The UMN Predicate/Prepositional Logic class that Cerro Coso refused to transfer was a much more formalized version of the same thing, so this is not new territory to me.) I picked "probably" and was told that that was wrong, and it does not necessarily follow... with shifting reasoning as I continued to question this. First it was because there's no casual effect (studies generally aim for showing causal effect), then because time has passed and effects don't happen over time (this reverses the outcomes of a bunch of the other sample questions and no explanation could be provided for when time did and did not nullify cause and effect). At the time, I basically ignoring that this was happening over a question about beating children; I was just focused on trying to get a consistent explanation on the logic, eventually spent too much time and mental energy on it, and decided that I would not be able to peer in to the instructor's head and trying to emulate completely arbitrary exceptions would be a liability to my other obligations and recreation.
To be absolutely clear to anyone wandering in here, my position is that the US politically is far to the right, dangerously so, and has been and continues to move in that direction. We do not need even more hard-line right-wing narrative like this.
( Content warning on abuse. On to English below the cut, which I have been screenshotting. )
I didn't save the exact passage, but it was basically "scientific studies show that children who are beaten tend to grow up to beat their children". We were asked to if the conclusion follows from the premise necessarily/unavoidably, probably, or they're unrelated. (The UMN Predicate/Prepositional Logic class that Cerro Coso refused to transfer was a much more formalized version of the same thing, so this is not new territory to me.) I picked "probably" and was told that that was wrong, and it does not necessarily follow... with shifting reasoning as I continued to question this. First it was because there's no casual effect (studies generally aim for showing causal effect), then because time has passed and effects don't happen over time (this reverses the outcomes of a bunch of the other sample questions and no explanation could be provided for when time did and did not nullify cause and effect). At the time, I basically ignoring that this was happening over a question about beating children; I was just focused on trying to get a consistent explanation on the logic, eventually spent too much time and mental energy on it, and decided that I would not be able to peer in to the instructor's head and trying to emulate completely arbitrary exceptions would be a liability to my other obligations and recreation.
To be absolutely clear to anyone wandering in here, my position is that the US politically is far to the right, dangerously so, and has been and continues to move in that direction. We do not need even more hard-line right-wing narrative like this.
( Content warning on abuse. On to English below the cut, which I have been screenshotting. )
