Meet Princeton's anti-woman, anti-multiculturalism Professor

[Dawson Leery]

Robert George

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/robert-george

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/magazine/20george-t.html?pagewanted=all

"In the American culture wars, George wants to redraw the lines. It is the liberals, he argues, who are slaves to a faith-based “secularist orthodoxy” of “feminism, multiculturalism, gay liberationism and lifestyle liberalism.” Conservatives, in contrast, speak from the high ground of nonsectarian public reason. George is the leading voice for a group of Catholic scholars known as the new natural lawyers. He argues for the enforcement of a moral code as strictly traditional as that of a religious fundamentalist. What makes his natural law “new” is that it disavows dependence on divine revelation or biblical Scripture — or even history and anthropology. Instead, George rests his ethics on a foundation of “practical reason”: “invoking no authority beyond the authority of reason itself,” as he put it in one essay."

http://www.princeton.edu/admission/whatsdistinctive/facultyprofiles/george/

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/05/robert-p-george-to-head-aei/217256/

[patrice]

1. Isn't this just more of that "because sex produces children, that's what it is for and nothing else"

line of reasoning? Sex is for procreation and, because it is for procreation, it's only other purpose is to bind the male and the female together in order to care for their offspring.

Is this the same sort of thing as, "Because I sweat, because my body produces sweat, that must be THE purpose of my body"?

This seems so easily refuted; I'm not sure why anyone is impressed with it, even with all of the guy's credentials, that doesn't NECESSARILY mean that he MUST produce worthy work. Perhaps i misunderstand what the basic value of this position is. I will re-read.

[progress2k12nbynd]

2. Multiculturalism warped into globalism.

Not working out for anybody.

[patrice]

3. link supporting that rather over-broad statement? In my community,

multiculturalism is a local Sufi group dancing for the people at a community center.

or a local Hispanic female poetess doing her original works, first in Spanish, and then in English, in a cute little, ultra-not-hip, art gallery that has pot-luck-appetizers, wine, music, art, and poetry events over on the edge of the ghetto.

or the Italian grocery store, again ultra-not-hip, just down the block from the Turkish market, in the northwest corner of the city market

or the International Festival held every year in one of our major city parks, again, just on the edge of the ghetto.

i could come up with more, but I'd rather hear your explanation for why multiculturalism is responsible for globalism and not the 1% corporations who offshore our jobs for tax breaks provided by the best government money, and LOTS of it, can buy.

I eagerly await your answer.

[EFerrari]

4. Globalism totalizes different cultures, it doesn't embrace them.

[sakabatou]

5. Hey professor!

The 1600s called. They want you to come back.

[grantcart]

6. "He has parlayed a 13th-century Catholic philosophy into real political influence."

Because there was just so much good stuff from the 13th Century to bring to our modern existence.

[patrice]

8. I'm going to use that if you don't mind. This is bullshit. Do you think he really knows that it is?

i mean, if he's got any kind of mind at all, surely he knows what crap this is.

[patrice]

7. Still not getting it. If sex is only for making kids, why is ED even possible? How come women

naturally throw-away so many eggs?

I mean, if you're saying something is just that simple, shouldn't it BE just that simple?

The fact that George has to throw in that other piece about how sex is for the purpose of creating a bond between a man and woman, in order to care for their offspring - either reduces men to sex driven animals, who can't bond otherwise, or it necessitates a hypothesis that there is something else involved in sex, say, perhaps, something like a brain(???), that IS essential to your procreation hypothesis and once you introduce the brain into this equation, Katie-bar-the-door!!!, which is what George is trying to do.

Again, if this guy has so many creds, perhaps there's something I don't understand in his theories, but this seems pretty obviously flawed. And I haven't even mentioned the limitations on what George is referring to as "logic", a.k.a. rational empiricism.

Is THIS all they've got?????

FAIL!