by kamal Ali January 20, 2004
Get the Ass intrusion mug.Phrase coined in Buffalo, New York. Refers to the accidental anal penetration of a dago girl from Riverside, CA.
Mr. H slipped his member into the butthole of the young Italian dago, Miss P
oh dear that's the incidental Italian intrusion!
oh dear that's the incidental Italian intrusion!
by budmcbudsinton October 4, 2009
Get the Incidental Italian Intrusion mug.1. Of, relating to, or characterized by intensity: intensive training.
2. Possessing or requiring to a high degree. Often used in combination: research-intensive; labor-intensive.
2. Possessing or requiring to a high degree. Often used in combination: research-intensive; labor-intensive.
by Anonymous February 20, 2003
Get the intensive mug.The name of a campus-wide campaign for the University of Illinois Urbana, Champaign that is grounded on the assumption that a university learning environment functions best when one accepts and respects others' view, identity, sexual orientation, race, etc.
At first glance, the assumption seems guided by altruistic motives, but upon further reflection, the campaign seems more motivated by profit and greed than by sound motives. Secondly, the campaign does not make sense within the context of the American political system.
Third of all, I do not believe the university should be teaching morals to its students.
In depth:
Other motives: trustees in charge of serious university financial decisions do not have altruistic motives and are motivated by profit. If making the campus more open creates more incentives for minorities and international students to choose the U of I over another school, then the University earns more money, especially for out of state students.
American Political Context: Theories: Liberal Pluralism or Republicanism or majoritarian or Elitist?
In other words should our political system be interest group based with advocates telling us when to mobilize (liberal pluralism), republican in that we deliberate collectively and the best argument prevails, majoritarian in that the majority (most votes) wins out, or elitist, in that citizens are assumed to be too unintelligent to know their interests, loyalty to parties is instilled, and we are ruled by experts.
It would seem our university system just as the American political system is a mix of these political theories. We have interests groups who exert pressure on the administration to change policy with respect to race relations, for example, but no student seems knowledgeable enough to have the psychology, political, and math background to understand what motivates people to stereotype, discriminate, or make racist comments in the classroom or as fans on the sports field.
It seems we are ruled by elites (trustees and the administration), but interest groups do exert pressure on them when motivated by advocates (professors and leaders) to do so. There does not seem to be much of a deliberative republican element because republicanism assumes that students discover their common interests through deliberative, inclusive, objective, and informed debate. While the university does host debates for such issues, few students attend them, meaning either they don't ascribe to main assumption behind the university's campaign or they are indifferent. Both possibilities point to an uneducated campus electorate or just interest groups acting on ideological cues. Finally, there really are not majoritarian elements in anything besides club cabinets or the university's student senate. While the senate's deliberation procedure is grounded on the majoritarian theory, its decisions serve to merely rubber stamp public opinion, nothing more.
So, me, as a University of Illinois student, goes to class and functions in an elitist and liberal pluralist system.
Morals: Given the type of university political system we are in, I disagree with the administration's take on race and minority issues. We should certainly be asked to respect other people for who they are, but not necessarily accept them for who they are. Put another way, we shouldn't be required to accept anybody's way of life or behavior, unless we all together actively engage in discourse to determine what is best for the common good or why such behaviors might be detrimental to the university's atmosphere. I believe our university's senate should be expanded to include all students, graduate and undergraduate so we can, as a body politic, experience politics and understand it.
Lessons: Don't force feed cheap morals to students who misunderstand them, were not educated by their parents to respect others, or have not been taught to understand that any movement forward involves what is logically best for the common interest of all. Secondly, instill civic virtues in people, so they can learn to cooperate together to achieve goals, and, at the same, learn from the consequences of failed policy choices.
At first glance, the assumption seems guided by altruistic motives, but upon further reflection, the campaign seems more motivated by profit and greed than by sound motives. Secondly, the campaign does not make sense within the context of the American political system.
Third of all, I do not believe the university should be teaching morals to its students.
In depth:
Other motives: trustees in charge of serious university financial decisions do not have altruistic motives and are motivated by profit. If making the campus more open creates more incentives for minorities and international students to choose the U of I over another school, then the University earns more money, especially for out of state students.
American Political Context: Theories: Liberal Pluralism or Republicanism or majoritarian or Elitist?
In other words should our political system be interest group based with advocates telling us when to mobilize (liberal pluralism), republican in that we deliberate collectively and the best argument prevails, majoritarian in that the majority (most votes) wins out, or elitist, in that citizens are assumed to be too unintelligent to know their interests, loyalty to parties is instilled, and we are ruled by experts.
It would seem our university system just as the American political system is a mix of these political theories. We have interests groups who exert pressure on the administration to change policy with respect to race relations, for example, but no student seems knowledgeable enough to have the psychology, political, and math background to understand what motivates people to stereotype, discriminate, or make racist comments in the classroom or as fans on the sports field.
It seems we are ruled by elites (trustees and the administration), but interest groups do exert pressure on them when motivated by advocates (professors and leaders) to do so. There does not seem to be much of a deliberative republican element because republicanism assumes that students discover their common interests through deliberative, inclusive, objective, and informed debate. While the university does host debates for such issues, few students attend them, meaning either they don't ascribe to main assumption behind the university's campaign or they are indifferent. Both possibilities point to an uneducated campus electorate or just interest groups acting on ideological cues. Finally, there really are not majoritarian elements in anything besides club cabinets or the university's student senate. While the senate's deliberation procedure is grounded on the majoritarian theory, its decisions serve to merely rubber stamp public opinion, nothing more.
So, me, as a University of Illinois student, goes to class and functions in an elitist and liberal pluralist system.
Morals: Given the type of university political system we are in, I disagree with the administration's take on race and minority issues. We should certainly be asked to respect other people for who they are, but not necessarily accept them for who they are. Put another way, we shouldn't be required to accept anybody's way of life or behavior, unless we all together actively engage in discourse to determine what is best for the common good or why such behaviors might be detrimental to the university's atmosphere. I believe our university's senate should be expanded to include all students, graduate and undergraduate so we can, as a body politic, experience politics and understand it.
Lessons: Don't force feed cheap morals to students who misunderstand them, were not educated by their parents to respect others, or have not been taught to understand that any movement forward involves what is logically best for the common interest of all. Secondly, instill civic virtues in people, so they can learn to cooperate together to achieve goals, and, at the same, learn from the consequences of failed policy choices.
by legalpwn September 23, 2009
Get the Inclusive mug.This is the protocol to end all conflict in the world today. Essentially, if anything has not been claimed ownership of or is contested, the rightful owner is the one who exclaims Dibs. This can pertain to anything that is but is not limited too: Consumable items, permanent items, roles, antiquities, land, and in rare cases people.
Now there are some amendments to this protocol that must be enforced:
1. You can only call dibs on a certain thing if it is within eyesight of the person calling dibs. No calling dibs on the passenger seat of a vehicle in the checkout, as it must be called upon entering the parking lot.
2. Dibs shall only be called when two or more parties have a claim to that item. This can be through verbal or non-verbal clues in the context of the social setting. If someone calls dibs when there is clearly no other person who wants to lay claim to it, it disembellishes the sanctity of the dibs protocol. Dibs is not a word to use in vain.
3. Just to go into further detail on the dibs protocol applying to people. This pertains to calling dibs on the athletic kids in kickball and other games in P.E class where the teacher cruelly picks the two physically acoustic kids as the team captains.
4. In the event that the item that is being called dibs is a public item (ex: classroom seat), dibs must be renewed daily. Either that or until one person has called consecutive dibs on that item for seven days straight. This gives that person full rights to that object
Now there are some amendments to this protocol that must be enforced:
1. You can only call dibs on a certain thing if it is within eyesight of the person calling dibs. No calling dibs on the passenger seat of a vehicle in the checkout, as it must be called upon entering the parking lot.
2. Dibs shall only be called when two or more parties have a claim to that item. This can be through verbal or non-verbal clues in the context of the social setting. If someone calls dibs when there is clearly no other person who wants to lay claim to it, it disembellishes the sanctity of the dibs protocol. Dibs is not a word to use in vain.
3. Just to go into further detail on the dibs protocol applying to people. This pertains to calling dibs on the athletic kids in kickball and other games in P.E class where the teacher cruelly picks the two physically acoustic kids as the team captains.
4. In the event that the item that is being called dibs is a public item (ex: classroom seat), dibs must be renewed daily. Either that or until one person has called consecutive dibs on that item for seven days straight. This gives that person full rights to that object
EX: 1
Conner (new kid in class): Hey imma sit here
Shaianne(a stuck up dweeb): But I sit there, you can't sit there
Conner: Dibs! According to the Interuniversal Dibs Protocol (IDP), this chair is mine now!
Shaianne: yaknow.....Fair enough
Shaianne takes a seat somewhere else, as Connor is now the rightful owner of the chair.
*Russia and Ukraine settle in the Crimea*
Ukraine: This is some pretty good land here
Russia: Yah I like it too
Ukraine: Dibs.
Russia: Well, I was gonna take it over but I can't now because you called dibs.
Ukraine: Yah I know, eat shit commie.
Russia: Yikes, why ya gotta be so rude.
*Ukraine is the rightful owner of the Crimea, and had this happened instead, there would be no conflict.*
Conner (new kid in class): Hey imma sit here
Shaianne(a stuck up dweeb): But I sit there, you can't sit there
Conner: Dibs! According to the Interuniversal Dibs Protocol (IDP), this chair is mine now!
Shaianne: yaknow.....Fair enough
Shaianne takes a seat somewhere else, as Connor is now the rightful owner of the chair.
*Russia and Ukraine settle in the Crimea*
Ukraine: This is some pretty good land here
Russia: Yah I like it too
Ukraine: Dibs.
Russia: Well, I was gonna take it over but I can't now because you called dibs.
Ukraine: Yah I know, eat shit commie.
Russia: Yikes, why ya gotta be so rude.
*Ukraine is the rightful owner of the Crimea, and had this happened instead, there would be no conflict.*
by ThatGuyConnor May 7, 2019
Get the Interuniversal Dibs Protocol (IDP) mug.How people who don't stop to think about things and are accustom to taking most things at face value say "For all intents and purposes."
My math teacher as a lead-in to some math point said "Well, for all intensive purposes..."
She was a young ditzy female who as her day job taught math and as her night job did modern dance. EXACTLY the type of person you would expect to say "For all intensive purposes."
She was a young ditzy female who as her day job taught math and as her night job did modern dance. EXACTLY the type of person you would expect to say "For all intensive purposes."
by FooberFoober August 18, 2005
Get the For all intensive purposes mug.1) malapropism for 'intents and purposes'
2) seriously determined and focused aquatic mammals, dangerous to sharks
2) seriously determined and focused aquatic mammals, dangerous to sharks
For all intensive porpoises, whiskey and vodka will both mess you up in a similar manner if you drink enough
by ichi_san May 2, 2012
Get the intensive porpoises mug.