So /pol/ how often do you need to hide your power level?
>Be in seminar room >Legal concepts and theory >Prof. asks a question to class
"Should you and 29 other people be placed onto an Island, the Island itself is bountiful with animals, fruit and fish as well as fresh water streams. You and you alone are given the power to draft a constitution in a manner that if followed correctly would result in a society better than the current one that we live in, naturally people will have differing opinions on this and therefore you will debate on your decisions later. You will be visited 12 months later by a boat and depending how well you argue your constitution to the Captain who will be me will determine if you may be rescued from the Island. I would like to stress that this exercise is about your ability to argue valid claims and defend accusations against your claims.
(Or something along those lines)
>Catch to this >6 'rules' must be picked from a handout >Typical things "No murder" etc >One of my points is Freedom of speech >Prof. asks "To what limit?" >To no limit, it is free. >Collective class anal prolapsing >BUT ANON WHAT ABOUT DAS RACIST >"Freedom is not limited, it is Free" >BUT DEN U WANT RACISTS ON ISLAND >"No I just won't limit speech" >Prof. calms class down >Says he won't allow me to leave the island >You have created an intolerant society >Goes on a lecture about how I was creating a fascist empire much like Hitler
>>36994850 No Russel group Uni...Not sure if that makes it better of worse.
>>36994898 It depends on the professor. My Criminal Law professor is very anti-left and has some hardcore conservative opinions. Legal System however is basically filled with all the leftist Professors (Probably because it focuses on history and general theory rather than stated facts)
The argument was more drawn out than I put in the OP, the post would have been way too long in that case. It was basically me against the class and I feel that the Professor who had made many PC statements was simply shutting it down. He also stated that another rule of mine was "Overly authoritarian and was going against basic human rights"
The rule in question?
>No person will at any point lower their physical health below what it currently stands upon the writing of this constitution, unless the misfortune is otherwise not within the persons own direct fault, for example; to contract an illness or to become injured. An example to the contrary would be should person 'A' decide they do not want their full specified food for the day and give it to person 'B' then should person 'A' become weaker due to improper eating and person 'B' become lacking in physical ability due to overeating and thus unable to properly aid in the general running of the community such as hunting and gathering then they will either be given the option to leave the society as would be their right or they will be given the option to improve their physical ability back to an acceptable standard. Furthermore everyone upon the writing of this rule who does not meet basic fitness levels will be placed on a program to allow them to become productive to the group as a whole.
I thought it made sense on a fucking Island where the goal is to stay alive and build a BETTER society
>in freshman sociology class >"blah blah blah white privilege blah blah blah all white peoples fault blah blah blah systematic racism" >quietly just deal with it, don't want to draw attention to myself just want to get an A and get the fuck out and focus on my field of study >Syria gets brought up >this is back when the US was crying about "MUH RED LINE" and "MUH LIMITED AIRSTRIKES" >some faggot in class asks if we can get Assad "tried for genocide" >teacher says no because a genocide is the targeted killing of a specific group of people >I chime in and say "You mean like how the 'moderate rebels' are targeting Christians and Shia?" >shitstorm ensues >MUH CHILDREN, MUH EVIL DICTATOR, MUH CHEMICAL WEAPONS >teacher calms everyone down and says it's unfair to call every rebel a terrorist >stayed quiet for the rest of the semester
>>36994595 >Freedom leads to fascism Then, let me ask: If Total freedom of speech leads to fascism all the time, it is a natural occurence in human society, yet we must limit personal freedom to stay a sane and healthy society. Yet, why is the limitation of anything like consumerism, sexual concepts, arts etc. a bad things?
>>36995445 Also went to a Russel Group university, bunch of leftwing nutjobs everywhere putting in their political view where it was neither necessary nor wanted (by me at least, there were some nutjob students as well)
>>36994595 >be at a bar after work with buddy and his roomates / coworkers >buddy is a nigger, but the ok kind of nigger that is still dumb but plays vidya and shit >someone brings up Ferguson and das raciss and shit >can't say anything, don't want to reveal power level >stay quiet >eventually just make a joke that killing niggers gets you a free paid vacation, but only if you're a cop >they think I'm just bashing cops, in reality I'm jealous of their benefits package I think I did alright
>>36994595 >Absolutely free speech >Hitler >Insinuating that Fascism is connected to free speech >Insinuating that Fascists are totally cool with people criticizing or speaking ill of the government. Why didn't you call the professor a moron?
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.