I thought you were done with this discussion two posts ago.
> The original quote is from several decades ago.
Yet you are saying it is relevant today. I’m not concerned with the original quote; I’m concerned with your endorsement of it.
> "Best" is a useless superlative when without an adjective. Ironically, US institutions are definitely the "best" at indebting their students.
Is it now your argument that the US universities aren’t ranked at the top in the world?
Either way, you’ve again argued the stakes are high, as student debt is a national, generational problem in the US.
> Another ad hominem and appeal to an authority (yours) that you haven't disclosed.
Since you haven’t actually argued a consistent, coherent position, we are left comparing experience to explain your inconsistency. You have brought a lot of your personal baggage to the discussion, relating to your experience and that of your friends. Had you stuck to actual arguments instead of conclusory statements borne from your experience as a PhD student, maybe I would not be focused on your own credentials. But since you have only brought to bear your perspective as a PhD student in order to indict all of academia, your personal perspective is quite relevant. That you have no experience in academia beyond being a student is relevant when you’re making blanket statements as you are.
> "Ad hominem" = "to the person." Politics involve but are not people. The only remarks "to the person" have been yours to me.
That’s not how I see it. This entire conversation you’ve made conclusory statements that people like me are vicious and bitter and petty. I don’t think I’ve said anything even close to as disparaging as that about you. If you are not bringing evidence and arguments to the discussion, how is your position not ad hominem? You are making statements about academics as people. Do you not see how your position could be interpreted in a negative way by the very people you intend to malign?
> Do you not see how your position could be interpreted in a negative way by the very people you intend to malign?
Again, politics aren't people; I can hate the game but not the players [1], who are also human beings with their own lives and issues. How personally you're taking this says more about you than me or the argument, which I'd recommend you reflect on as we both go touch some grass.
> The original quote is from several decades ago.
Yet you are saying it is relevant today. I’m not concerned with the original quote; I’m concerned with your endorsement of it.
> "Best" is a useless superlative when without an adjective. Ironically, US institutions are definitely the "best" at indebting their students.
Is it now your argument that the US universities aren’t ranked at the top in the world?
Either way, you’ve again argued the stakes are high, as student debt is a national, generational problem in the US.
> Another ad hominem and appeal to an authority (yours) that you haven't disclosed.
Since you haven’t actually argued a consistent, coherent position, we are left comparing experience to explain your inconsistency. You have brought a lot of your personal baggage to the discussion, relating to your experience and that of your friends. Had you stuck to actual arguments instead of conclusory statements borne from your experience as a PhD student, maybe I would not be focused on your own credentials. But since you have only brought to bear your perspective as a PhD student in order to indict all of academia, your personal perspective is quite relevant. That you have no experience in academia beyond being a student is relevant when you’re making blanket statements as you are.
> "Ad hominem" = "to the person." Politics involve but are not people. The only remarks "to the person" have been yours to me.
That’s not how I see it. This entire conversation you’ve made conclusory statements that people like me are vicious and bitter and petty. I don’t think I’ve said anything even close to as disparaging as that about you. If you are not bringing evidence and arguments to the discussion, how is your position not ad hominem? You are making statements about academics as people. Do you not see how your position could be interpreted in a negative way by the very people you intend to malign?