Two Espressos

I agree with you, to an extent. I see no compelling reason to wear hats (and sunglasses) in class. It feels far too informal. Maybe that's just because I'm not a hat person, though. Anyways, Americans can definitely be far too casual. I loved the no-hat professor, by the way, despite his terrible public speaking skills and cantankerous attitude. He has been my favorite thus far. His no-hat rule quickly established his authority in the classroom: my fellow students were most well-behaved!

Yeah, it really did. You're probably right. And I apologize: I didn't know that you had had training in philosophy! I mainly said the philosopher thing because I felt like I wasn't adequately expressing my side, and I wasn't getting Aaron to see the flaws in his analogies. Yes, I found your quote cogent and rigorous as well. It was a good one! Ah, I should have left the discussion for good before, when I said I'd leave the discussion for good. I agree with you; the discussion is quite futile now. We should all just quit. I wish Aaron would have addressed my rebuttal of his analogies, though.

I once had a professor who requested that every student take off his/her hat in class. He became angry when students thought he was joking. He was older and tenured though, so I guess that explains both his old-fashioned view and his insistence that it had to be followed.

You do, as is evidenced by this forum. You've also ignored attacks on your logic, falsely attributed radical positions to those who disagree with you, and then vehemently disparaged your dissenters for holding these non-existent views. Honestly, this discussion is getting way out of hand, and way off topic.

Language is powerful and incredibly nuanced. You cannot simply omit words to try to find "what people mean."

Holy shit, you're really generalizing every viewpoint against your own. So every person that opposes drug use and supports taxes/welfare is promoting "hiring thugs" to go after lots of peaceful people? It's a shame that there isn't a formally-trained philosopher on these threads, because s/he would have probably provided a succinct and powerful response that would have ended this lunacy by now.

I stated earlier that I was unsure whether or not guns should be allowed on campuses. At the very least, I *never* said that violence should be taken against gun owners on campuses that allow concealed carry. And where did I actually say that guns should not be allowed on campuses? I remember saying something to the effect of, "I don't see why guns should be allowed on campuses," which expresses questioning into the logic behind allowing concealed carry----something that was readily discussed earlier in the forum. I'd like to see the post where you aver that my statement came from. I'd like to see it in context, or at the very least, be able to explain it more readily to you.

Okay, so by your logic, one should be allowed to concealed carry firearms on aircraft also?

Well then, you've been arguing against no one in particular. Please, find a post where I mandated that concealed carry should be disallowed on all college campuses that heretofore allow it. I personally don't see the need for concealed carry, and neither does ZeeMore21. Neither s/he nor I ever stated that the government should send armed "thugs" or what not to remove all guns off college campuses.

That's exactly what I thought the point of this thread was also.

Wait a second, here---did you not earlier concede that institutions have a right to allow or disallow guns (as well as alcohol, etc) on campuses?! If so, why are you arguing against yourself?

Again, to second what ZeeMore21 has said--no one has advocated violence against people with guns. You previously accused ZeeMore21 of wanting to hire thugs to stop gun holders; you later apologized and rescinded your position. Now you seem to be picking up your previous accusation----why?

Here's a copy-and-pasted (from my post far earlier in this forum) rebuttal of your fists and guns analogy: Positions for or against gun control on college campuses aside, this is a faulty analogy. One is born with their fists; they are parts of the body. Guns are not. You cannot elect to not carry your fists without causing severe physical pain. Our hands also have hundreds of uses beyond causing violence. Guns do not have these multitudinous uses. Guns shoot (whether they are used properly or improperly, they have no other function). As for jewelry--are you really saying that carrying a gun around is equivalent to wearing earrings? Government officials don't seem to agree, as concealed weapons are not allowed on aircraft or in governmental buildings. Your position seems to be that guns are "tools" and are thus equivalent to any other "tools": jewelry, fists, etc. I think this analogy is extremely suspect. For instance: an earring's primary purpose is to hang in the ear and be aesthetically pleasing. A gun's primary purpose is to shoot, is it not? Why else were guns created? They certainly weren't created simply to be aesthetically pleasing. Also, what exactly is a "tool," by your definition? Frankly, one could argue that ANYTHING is a tool.

I didn't want to elucidate my background, but I will--briefly--to quell some misconceptions here. Firstly, I am not prejudiced against guns, and I do not possess an "uncanny hatred for protecting oneself." I live in a rural area with a strong gun culture. My father owned two handguns when I lived with him; my former boyfriend's family owned multiple guns; my former roommates were very interested in guns and owned a shotgun (which was kept in their room, out in the open, propped up against the wall). Hell, I OWN a gun. Granted, it's only a starter pistol and only fires blanks. I mainly have it for its aesthetic value, and for possibly scaring off intruders if necessary. I plan on purchasing a real handgun within the next year. Strong arguments can indeed be made for concealed carry on campuses, but I feel like yours have been relatively weak. What's more, my issue with your analogies is that they are not logically sound: some of my previous posts address why.

I agree with you completely. I'm in the same situation--regional university system--and can see how the OP might be concerned about prestige and competitiveness (though still an undergraduate--and still over a year away from my application season--I have had similar concerns).

I said I was going to quit posting, and here I go again. Anyways, whether you brought up homosexuality or heterosexuality, I still would be alarmed by your questionable analogies (like the fists one, which for some reason you're still bringing up, as well as the jewelry comparison).

What a wonderful and uplifting thread! I too am a first-generation, low-income student (but I'm still an undergrad--graduate school is still two years away), though my struggles pale in comparison to many of those previously listed. Much of what has been said has resonated with me--family members who do not understand my academic choices, etc. I realize that much of this thread is old. Nonetheless, I want to thank everyone who has shared their experiences: your motivation is inspiring!

I agree. Like a previous poster mentioned, debating with extreme libertarian, solipsistic viewpoints is not conducive whatsoever. I'm personally going to leave the discussion.

I've voted many of your posts down; it's not ZeeMore21. I've voted many (but not all--and there is reason for that) down not because I dislike your point of view, but because your posts have deliberately veered off topic and have not addressed the concerns of this forum. Also, you've devolved into idiocy--cue your #2. When did ZeeMore21 ever state she wanted to physically harm you or hire thugs? ZeeMore21, we should follow the advice of other posters and drop this topic. Aaron will not maintain decency.

Why carry guns around if you do not intend to use them? And what if the bombs mentioned were concealed, and the bomb carrier did not plan to use them? Would his possession of bombs in a public area be justified then? Okay, but what are you referencing with this? If you're referring to restricting concealed carry on a college campus...I don't see how that violates someone's "freedom to live." If you aren't referring to concealed carry, then what are you talking about?

This analogy is terribly disrespectful and is perhaps even more bizarre than your prior one. Do we need more? Yes, we do. Though I cannot possibly see how one could equate homosexuality with concealed carry. When you use an analogy, it is helpful to use two things that can conceivably be linked.

I second the advice that lyonessrampant gives. From what I know, your GPA and expected GRE scores will make you competitive. lyonessrampant is correct in that philosophy departments value GRE much more than other humanities departments. A GRE combined score of 1450 or so (you expect scores in the mid 700s on each, so you should be fine) will make you competitive for top programs. You seem apprehensive about law (you bemoan "consign[ing] myself to a boring legal career"), so I'd apply to philosophy PhD programs over law school. Apply widely, and remember that the job market for philosophy professors is as bad as or even a little worse than other humanities disciplines. By landing in a top program that both caters to your subfield and provides rigorous academic training, you should be very marketable for tenure-track jobs, though. However, I think the best way of gauging your abilities is to ask your professors (perhaps those whom you plan to write your LORs): you mentioned that they are young and up-and-coming, so they would know the current state of philosophy graduate programs best. Good luck!

This is partially what had disturbed me about his earlier post; it was partially why I stated that his post was "all over the place." If he is somehow equating homosexuality and guns, then that is another terrible (and not to mention offensive) analogy on his part.

My post was mostly concerned with the specious nature of your analogy; how is that missing the point? You made an illogical analogy to support your conclusions, and I refuted it. Anyways, this post is all over the place and largely ignores the most recent concerns (both for and against concealed firearms on campuses) that ZeeMore21, Eigen, and I have brought up. I don't think that bringing a gun to campus is a "basic human right." Is it a basic human right to peacefully carry concealed firearms into governmental buildings, including courthouses? By your logic, no one can intervene into someone else's affairs unless that person explicitly commits a crime or act of aggression. Gun control laws (not exclusively laws against concealed firearms on campuses) exist to prevent the likelihood of crime occurring (hence, why assault weapons are illegal). So are you opposed to assault weapon bans, as well as laws against carrying bombs and other deadly weapons (assume that the person carrying said deadly weapons will not use them)?