On the other hand, the fact that a blowhard troll like Dinesh D'Souza passes for an intellectual in the modern Republican party is more evidence that they're definitely not elitists.
That would be convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza, author of such timeless classics as Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party. Didn't he get fired from King's College for cheating on his wife?
>Didn't he get fired from King's College for cheating on his wife?
Education institution that fires people based on their personal life choices that don't affect their work? And I thought we were done with this crap in the 21st century.
(1) Adultery is not your average indiscretion. Breaking a marriage contract is illegal in most jurisdictions (though it is rarely enforced).
(2) When you teach at a religious institution, "personal life choices that don't affect their work?" is less of a thing, because you've deliberately related work and religion (i.e. personal choices).
It might not be your cup of tea, but some students want to attend an institution of high moral standards, as well as high academic standards.
You can bring up D'Souza's getting fired for cheating on his wife with the Board of Trustees of King's College. Their address is:
56 Broadway, New York, NY 10004
Since King's College is an accredited, Christian liberal arts college, I can only assume that they demand the highest moral character from their professors and administration. And stuff.
Why would I? I don't care about their views on morality, and they can decide whatever they like. I wouldn't regard religious schools as a quality education though.
But I'm not sure why extramarital relations are being brought up as a way to discredit someone, when it's of zero relevance.
Um, no. An ad hominem argument would be if I were attacking 551199's character which I'm not. Instead, 551199 cited D'Souza as a reliable source and I attacked D'Souza's character. See the difference? Good.
I am however, impeaching D'Souza's credibility as a source.
..based on political views you find odious, rather than directly attacking what you think is right or wrong about the particular (unrelated) statement in question. That is an ad hominem argument.
Well, I didn't know that a felony conviction or cheating on your wife were political views. However, given the current President, perhaps you're right.
Specifically, pointing out the obviously biased nature of a source calls to question the credibility of said source, even before we get to addressing the argument itself.
Again, the arguer was+is 551199 and I'm not attacking him. However, he did trot out the odious Dinesh D'Souza and I felt it necessary to put that cretin into his proper context. So I'm not attacking the arguer; I'm attacking his alternate facts.
This whole Dinesh D'Souza tangent is a distraction to avoid talking about the issue at hand.
I think its safe to say that one the guiding principles of the modern Republican party is that less government regulation is better for everyone.
So why is the party that always advocates for less regulation and more competition REGULATING the energy market and RESTRICTING competition? Maybe because they aren't really for less regulation and more competition. Maybe they are about protecting the status quo?
Squaring the less regulation/more competition principles against this Wyoming law, or the anti-Tesla legislation in conservative states seems to indicate that these "principles" are an idealogical front to justify at least what some people want - Protecting their interests.
Well sourced: https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Debunking-the-Myth-GOP-and...
Dinesh D'Souza The Switch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJCVVbDlYhQ
You shouldn't downvote just because it doesn't fit your narrative.