Hoo boy. I'm at a four year university--transferred out of my 2 year school last fall--(and technically using their internet connection networks). As such, I didn't want to do this for any of my courses here for my own sake, but it looks like I'm going to have to do so instead. Believe me, I WANTED to do this for my criminal justice (read: State Apologetics: The Police and Court Additions) course, but after only one day in my Engineering Ethics class and an incomplete reading, I'm already cursing up a fucking storm.
Let me put it this way. A better name for this course would be: "State Apologetics: Elitists Edition (and how to stay out of trouble for engineers with teambuilding exercises)"
As usual, I won't name any names unless they are changed (for both legal and anti-douchebag reasons). And it will have the same format to the other "X Insanity" threads.
That being said: on with the fail!
Book: "Those who practice without a license (referring to professions in general; especially engineers and medicine) are subject to legal penalties. Although it can be argued that monopoly is necessary to protect the public from unqualified practicioners, it also increases the power of professionals in the marketplace."
(Because fuck everything we know about economics and history, right?)
Book and Professor: "as professions they regulate themselves---with backing from the State" (paraphrased)
(So they regulate themselves but they don't regulate themselves; but they have a monopoly on regulation for themselves via the state. Got it. And because fuck UL and ISO, right?)
Book: "Professions like Engineering need years of intellectual schooling; and while many jobs need that too, engineers and doctors need intellectual training" (paraphrased)
(Because that makes them special in the eyes of Go-- I mean, gov, right? E-L-I-T-I-S-T)
Book: "Since professional services are vital to the general welfare, citizens are willing to pay any price to get them."
(As an engineer, I'm not all knowing. That is something best determined by empiricism: by people in the marketplace voluntarily choosing the service themselves for a price they can afford. You do not speak for them, sorry.)
Book: "People owe you the most for your vital services" (paraphrased since I can't find the exact quote)
(Elitism, and not to mention MASSIVE special pleading. Not to mention massive entitlement complex)
Prof: "We live in a democracy"
(No, we live in a republic.)
And to top off the stupid pie:
My professor--on the first day--equates laws and regulations (read: legality) with morality.
Fucking.
Fail.
Don't get me wrong, the content does seem interesting when it's not licking the boots of the state, but damn. When it licks, it laps!
"Since professional services are vital to the general welfare, citizens are willing to pay any price to get them."
Yeah, because the laws of supply and demand just don't apply here somehow.
I'd still like to know how monopolies are terrible and horrible, EXCEPT when they're created by the state, then they're good and wonderful!
Yup.
Speaking of which, it reminds me of a gem my professor in economics (from the 2 year school gave me) but I never got around to posting.
He started by showing the equilibrium prices (wages) of professional baseball players compared to college professors. It showed there were more professors and they were paid less than the professional baseball players.
Now, being a sane individual, I commented that it didn't take into account the difference in individuals within those two jobs and there would be variance.
My econ professor goes on this rant about how, "Nope. Professors get equal pay, regardless of performance. I mean, how can you know which is a good professor vs a bad professor? Because they give better grades? They could have had their students skating along."
So because we don't know, therefore we know. *wink* got it. One more reason a free market in college education is needed. People could decide for THEMSELVES what makes a good professor, and, his pay would emerge via supply and demand and from the wisdom of crowds.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on January 26, 2012, 11:16:13 AM
My econ professor goes on this rant about how, "Nope. Professors get equal pay, regardless of performance. I mean, how can you know which is a good professor vs a bad professor? Because they give better grades? They could have had their students skating along."
So because we don't know, therefore we know. *wink* got it. One more reason a free market in college education is needed. People could decide for THEMSELVES what makes a good professor, and, his pay would emerge via supply and demand and from the wisdom of crowds.
read: the guy is butt-hurt and suffers from injured pride, b/c he isn't paid as well as geology or physics professors. yes, I said that. the thing is, I'm aware of physics professors here making 100k a year: it depends on the contract, the field of study, the professor's reputation, and the funds a university has at a given time-even the geographic location of a campus. all of this affects the salary. it's not just that "they are a professor, therefore they earn X money per year.
though he is partly right on one account: the salaries do not vary as much as say, in the sports industry, and area consistently lower than similarly educated people working at a company or even privately. that's b/c simply put, colleges have surprisingly little money (which is often spent on unnecessary buildings)
"Since professional services are vital to the general welfare, citizens are willing to pay any price to get them."
Imagine if a CEO of a private company was ever recorded saying something like this about their service.
Quote from: Goaticus on January 27, 2012, 09:31:40 PM
"Since professional services are vital to the general welfare, citizens are willing to pay any price to get them."
Imagine if a CEO of a private company was ever recorded saying something like this about their service.
I know, right? The public would shit their freakin' pants!
Yea verily, they would defecate masonry. I think a lot of the paranoia about what businesses would do in the free market is projection.
In fact a lot of behavior that pro-statists suggest Governments should do, if applied to an individual, would be considered psychopathy.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on January 27, 2012, 03:00:10 AM
colleges have surprisingly little money (which is often spent on unnecessary buildings)
You're being facetious, right? Colleges and universities get more money from the state and from the private individuals paying for them now than any other time in history.
Also, IIRC, the two highest expenses for colleges are both salaries and paper. Though I could be wrong on that one.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on January 27, 2012, 11:49:53 PM
You're being facetious, right? Colleges and universities get more money from the state and from the private individuals paying for them now than any other time in history.
Also, IIRC, the two highest expenses for colleges are both salaries and paper. Though I could be wrong on that one.
[spoiler]
well, partly so, to answer your question: yes, there is more money than ever, but no, it is not well spent (if that was the case, I wouldn't have said what I said). most of the government money here at CSU for example (it's not an isolated instance), goes to subsidizing the students who are instate (leaving people like me with x3 the tuition of instate), or is spent on these new construction projects like the "cube"* and this new fancy dorm that is to be built over an older one (the older building still being serviceable, and much needed-especially in light of the construction projects consistently taking longer than predicted). So surprisingly little money is being used for the faculty and departments themselves (though you are right, they are the #1 expenditure). This is reflected by the stagnant, and in some cases, decreased salary of the faculty.
also, the government, who the colleges here rely on a lot these days, has been slashing funding (especially here in Colorado). this means less money still for faculty. to keep them going at even the same level, guess who pays for this? we students do: in state tuition goes up 9%, out of state, 3%. did I mention the new "course level" fee here, which has done little to improve the quality of our services, but barely maintains them? or requiring us to pay fees for services that we don't use, and are still ill-maintained? I'm not kidding: I'm paying fees for things from subsidized super shuttle service (most people don't use it), to Free bus transits (which I've never needed, nor do most people here), or on mandatory "meal plans" (when I could use the 600$ for that part to buy me food for a full year, instead of a semester). If the money from all this was instead spent on our departments, we might be in a better situation. of course, if we get government out of this all-together, better still. because their subsidizing instate tuition, and all those loans, pretty much removes all incentives for a genuinely cheaper university tuition. And of course, sets up the paradox you've accidentally pointed to.
as to private donations? it depends on the department, and the level of prestige/publicity the university enjoys. Ed Warner (the guy who sponsors our college of natural resources), has actually gone out to say that our university needs better PR to get more private investments in. and before you say anything, he's a Libertarian too, and has had to explain to me and a friend of mine how the shit-for-brains running this campus can somehow afford several projects over this year, in a time of slashed funding from government.
bear in mind, this problem is most acute with land grant and state schools (i.e. government institutions), especially those like Colorado.
so in short: in theory, you would be right. in practice, there is more to it than that-people are simply misappropriating funds. I could share some fine examples from CSU if you like of this nonsense-the idiot president of ours sends a lot of emails about it.
*retarded addition to the Morgan library, which is almost never filled. it's supposed to be an extra room for studying in.....they're also remodeling the inside of the library, which is also unnecessary, since they've never really filled all the racks possible.[/spoiler]
in short: there's plenty of money, though it is not as well used as in the private sector, and consequently, there is "surprisingly" little for them. even though, again, yeah, there should have been more than enough.
One girl in the lecture (on why huge technology and infrastructure projects fail): "it's not because the government doesn't want them too, or just shrug it off; it's because they don't have the money or funding for it."
(Because over 3/5 of all our worldly wealth isn't enough...also, lolwut? She does realize that Government funding of infrastructure is the highest it's ever been in U.S. history, right?)
Prof: "Technocracy is supposed to be something that allows technology the thrive. Basically, it's when all the same people who are engineers, etc, are the same people who are the rulers"
(Because that worked so well for the Soviet Union, right? *rolls eyes* Because fuck all the verification of the economic calculation problem, right? If you want a system that allows technology to thrive, you want a free market.)
Prof: "If you buy a textbook, you only buy a license to read and use the book; not to make copies of it."
(Except none of said constraints are explained prior to purchase so that's not legal as Lord T Hawkeye said.
Also: "“(which you don’t have if the license for the album you bought explicity binds you to not doing so [referring to making copies or whatever])” -James
“Ignorance of the law contract is no excuse!”
I’d get a signature on that contract if you want that to hold up in the eyes of any reasonable third party arbiter, but even if you do, good luck figuring out which contracted purchaser released the first copy to a bunch of people online who signed no contract so you can try to enforce that contract. You apparently believe in mystical contracts that are attached to bits of electricity and bind themselves automatically to people who come into contact with them absent any explicit agreement.
“And it is so unused you don’t even notice/no harm comes to you.” -James
If that’s really the case, though it seems like quite a reach, a lot of reasonable people would say that constitutes abandonment. Generally speaking, theft equates directly to harm. If you labored to obtain property, then theft of that property is retroactive enslavement. If someone has absolutely no concern whatsoever for a piece of their property, then they’ve effectively abandoned it. It’s like someone picking items out of your garbage on the side of the road.
Nothing you’ve said has provided any logical reason to support this special notion of property (i.e. IP) that makes copying it theft when it’s not theft to copy any other kind of property." -- Dale Everett )
Some pillock in the lecture: "I think communism and fascism is great for technology. Just look at the Soviet Union, and how they got into space with Sputnik first!" (extremely paraphrased)
Professor: "That is true, you know what they say, Mussolini did make the trains run on time."
(...yeah, which must be way all the folks--save for the higher ups--in communist countries for dying of starvation, easily treatable diseases, etc. As for Mussolini...Seriously? What vast technological advances did they make? And even then, at what cost? For a teacher and especially a textbook that bray on and about about "the social" aspect of technology and how it's supposed to make people's lives better, there wasn't much of that in hyper-statist countries like that...)
Another huge blob:
Another reason discussed about failure of modern infrastructure (in terms of it reaching its limits) was "human nature; it's in our nature to consume as much as we can." (from a colleague of mine from last semester).
I tried to bring up the hint that this is a problem with government by stating: "tragedy of the commons"
but I think it fell on deaf ears.
Because one, my professor is a cunt, and my voice is hard to understand because of this damn head/chest cold. >_<
Gotta love how none got the hint that this eat up every resource thing is a problem with GOVERNMENT.
And how my professor said that old day colonization is what's done today in the form of globalization.
gotta love the conflation of rape with lovemaking on that one...
And I nearly facepalmed when she admitted out front that "corporations are publicly chartered legal entities" or something like that, and called them "private sector". She even went as far as implying that they're the ONLY part of the private sector creating jobs (when small businesses create the lion's share: 65% (Fringeelements) to 80% (Ruwart)).
In discussion.
A twat (after being shown that article from this forum about the next XBox about to lock out all used games): "Well, whatever; Microsoft can do whatever they want."
(1. Just because I express distaste in something doesn't mean I want to use God Gov to ban it, you statist pillock.
2. Yes, and they can deal with the consequences of it when the huge backlash from their fucktarded decision happens in the form of increased hax0r pwnage, and vastly increased piracy that would likely result from gamers who would feel alienated.)
OK, this will require some background context. We were discussing personal vs profession ethics of lawyers. One case was one where a lawyer was told by his client where he buried a body, but because of confidentiality, he couldn't tell the grieving family where the body of their loved one was. I said that as I read that, why couldn't the accused (AFTER the case) just go and tell the family where the fucking body is (That why, it wouldn't impact his trial results or hurt his lawyer's professional status). Well the
TA said: "if a guy's on trial for murder, I doubt he'd be ethic enough to do something like that. And it could hurt his case via self incrimination" And this one fucking girl responded with: "You have a right to a fair trial in this country to not have self-incrimination etc.; whether you agree with that or not."
(Tell that to the TSA, the people who enforce the DMCA and the Patriot Act; and who wrote and who will enforce SOPA, PIPA, and NDAA. Also, I said AFTER the fucking case, you idiots! Ever heard of double jeopardy? Christ!
Finally, since the dude wouldn't be his client AFTER the end of the case, couldn't he just tell him AFTER it ends?
Either way, yet another reason why "State Justice" is an oxymoron.)
And naturally, in the discussion (in lecture) about which systems would be the best for technology, capitalism/free market was brought up only once and ignored. The professor did at least admit this was a government system, with her as an agent of the state, so are we really surprised about this disregard of empiricism?
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on January 28, 2012, 12:59:08 AM
[spoiler]
well, partly so, to answer your question: yes, there is more money than ever, but no, it is not well spent (if that was the case, I wouldn't have said what I said). most of the government money here at CSU for example (it's not an isolated instance), goes to subsidizing the students who are instate (leaving people like me with x3 the tuition of instate), or is spent on these new construction projects like the "cube"* and this new fancy dorm that is to be built over an older one (the older building still being serviceable, and much needed-especially in light of the construction projects consistently taking longer than predicted). So surprisingly little money is being used for the faculty and departments themselves (though you are right, they are the #1 expenditure). This is reflected by the stagnant, and in some cases, decreased salary of the faculty.
also, the government, who the colleges here rely on a lot these days, has been slashing funding (especially here in Colorado). this means less money still for faculty. to keep them going at even the same level, guess who pays for this? we students do: in state tuition goes up 9%, out of state, 3%. did I mention the new "course level" fee here, which has done little to improve the quality of our services, but barely maintains them? or requiring us to pay fees for services that we don't use, and are still ill-maintained? I'm not kidding: I'm paying fees for things from subsidized super shuttle service (most people don't use it), to Free bus transits (which I've never needed, nor do most people here), or on mandatory "meal plans" (when I could use the 600$ for that part to buy me food for a full year, instead of a semester). If the money from all this was instead spent on our departments, we might be in a better situation. of course, if we get government out of this all-together, better still. because their subsidizing instate tuition, and all those loans, pretty much removes all incentives for a genuinely cheaper university tuition. And of course, sets up the paradox you've accidentally pointed to.
as to private donations? it depends on the department, and the level of prestige/publicity the university enjoys. Ed Warner (the guy who sponsors our college of natural resources), has actually gone out to say that our university needs better PR to get more private investments in. and before you say anything, he's a Libertarian too, and has had to explain to me and a friend of mine how the shit-for-brains running this campus can somehow afford several projects over this year, in a time of slashed funding from government.
bear in mind, this problem is most acute with land grant and state schools (i.e. government institutions), especially those like Colorado.
so in short: in theory, you would be right. in practice, there is more to it than that-people are simply misappropriating funds. I could share some fine examples from CSU if you like of this nonsense-the idiot president of ours sends a lot of emails about it.
*retarded addition to the Morgan library, which is almost never filled. it's supposed to be an extra room for studying in.....they're also remodeling the inside of the library, which is also unnecessary, since they've never really filled all the racks possible.[/spoiler]
in short: there's plenty of money, though it is not as well used as in the private sector, and consequently, there is "surprisingly" little for them. even though, again, yeah, there should have been more than enough.
I hope you're not trying to imply that they're not paid well. Hell, 100k for a physics professor and a gold plated pension? Sounds pretty fucking sweet to me! He'll that's more than twice what both my parents make--together.
I think someone's been listening to his professors waay too long, dude.
My TA: "Spore is the most pirated game ever. It was because you were only allowed 3 installs, so people would pirate it to make a point. And you can just look at those pirate figures and see the lost revenue."
(Actually, the most pirated game according to: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-pirated-games-time/ would be Call Of Duty: Black Ops – 4.27 million downloads, Nov 2010. Also, DRM actually *hurts* the game as he himself just stated. I mean, hasn't he ever heard of "The Witcher 2"? A game that did well in spite of--or most likely because of--having no DRM at all? Finally, the claim of lost revenue is bunk. All the major studies on the matter--yes, even those done by the huge media corporations themselves--show that piracy has, at worst, no net effect on revenue, and at best an increase of revenue because of increased exposure and interest in the media.)
He also makes a comment that was roughly: the government would have no choice but to use net neutrality.
(I recall a picture that said: "The Internet is already neutral. Net Neutrality = Control Control Control"
It would be even more neutral if GovCo would back the fuck off with this DMCA, and other IP bullshit.)
TA: "Now I want to hear both sides of the argument for SOPA; there isn't just a side against it; there are arguments for it too."
(Sure there are. And I can summarize them too: "FUCK THE INDEPENDENTS! WE NEED OUR MONOPOLY OF DISTRIBUTION! YOU ONLY BUY FROM US!" etc, from big media corporations.)
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 05, 2012, 12:32:12 AM
I hope you're not trying to imply that they're not paid well. Hell, 100k for a physics professor and a gold plated pension? Sounds pretty fucking sweet to me! He'll that's more than twice what both my parents make--together.
I made no implication that the pay of professors was bad, or that they didn't get a good deal. I stated simply that the money and funds for them were being allocated inefficiently, and that we students have to make up for any shortfall caused by (at least in CSU) the state government slashing their contribution, by the rise in our tuition, when there is perfectly good money we already pay, on completely useless stuff. I did say that the salary was being cut in some cases, which maybe where the misunderstanding originates, but who said it was being cut from a small income?
this gross incompetence and inefficiency was the origin behind my initial comment: that there is
surprisingly little money for colleges, which I explained in the first sentence of my second comment (in reply to your first question) was
partly facetious, before explaining why.
If anything, I'm basically bashing the school government-which I must add is staffed by politicians-Democrats IIRC. oh, and the state government too. who I must add started the problem by creating the entitlement BS, and heavily subsidizing the schools and their students.
oh, and if you want to know what I think about the salaries proper, let me put it to you this way: If I thought it was a bad deal, I wouldn't have been able to stand up to my dad and successfully convince him that I could make money as a geologist. he was opposed to my geology major, because he couldn't see how it could make money. when I showed him the figures, he was suitably impressed. in short: yes, it's damn good!
QuoteI think someone's been listening to his professors waay too long, dude.
actually, I largely don't discuss these things with them-it's considered unprofessional (by me), unless it's my adviser, who I must add is very fiscally conservative. And I didn't get my opinion from him either.
instead, I get my information from the letters our jackass president sends. needless to say, they don't sit well with me, as Its always along the lines of: "we don't have enough money, so we'll jack up your already exorbitant tuition, even though we are building these fancy new construction projects, which we don't need, and the money from them could be put back into actually maintain the college and decreasing our tuition, easing our recession.".
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 05, 2012, 04:38:56 PM
I made no implication that the pay of professors was bad, or that they didn't get a good deal. I stated simply that the money and funds for them were being allocated inefficiently, and that we students have to make up for any shortfall caused by (at least in CSU) the state government slashing their contribution, by the rise in our tuition, when there is perfectly good money we already pay, on completely useless stuff. I did say that the salary was being cut in some cases, which maybe where the misunderstanding originates, but who said it was being cut from a small income?
OK. My bad.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 05, 2012, 04:38:56 PMthis gross incompetence and inefficiency was the origin behind my initial comment: that there is surprisingly little money for colleges, which I explained in the first sentence of my second comment (in reply to your first question) was partly facetious, before explaining why.
OK. I must have misinterpreted as you saying that they weren't getting paid enough.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 05, 2012, 04:38:56 PMIf anything, I'm basically bashing the school government-which I must add is staffed by politicians-Democrats IIRC. oh, and the state government too. who I must add started the problem by creating the entitlement BS, and heavily subsidizing the schools and their students.
Oh. And how. I recall hearing from Peter Schiff how his dad was able to go to CT University using *some* of the money he earned working as a waiter during the summer. Something you obviously can't do these days because of interventionism in the higher education markets.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 05, 2012, 04:38:56 PMoh, and if you want to know what I think about the salaries proper, let me put it to you this way: If I thought it was a bad deal, I wouldn't have been able to stand up to my dad and successfully convince him that I could make money as a geologist. he was opposed to my geology major, because he couldn't see how it could make money. when I showed him the figures, he was suitably impressed. in short: yes, it's damn good!
actually, I largely don't discuss these things with them-it's considered unprofessional (by me), unless it's my adviser, who I must add is very fiscally conservative. And I didn't get my opinion from him either.
I meant to put a ":P" after that text to indicate sarcasm. So apologies on that.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 05, 2012, 04:38:56 PMinstead, I get my information from the letters our jackass president sends. needless to say, they don't sit well with me, as Its always along the lines of: "we don't have enough money, so we'll jack up your already exorbitant tuition, even though we are building these fancy new construction projects, which we don't need, and the money from them could be put back into actually maintain the college and decreasing our tuition, easing our recession.".
Ugh. Tell me about it. Reminds me of how colleges (e.g. the ones I go to) are raising tuition on the grounds that "IT'S UH RECESSION!" despite student (and gov't spending) on them being the highest it's ever been!
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 05, 2012, 06:14:08 PMOh. And how. I recall hearing from Peter Schiff how his dad was able to go to CT University using *some* of the money he earned working as a waiter during the summer. Something you obviously can't do these days because of interventionism in the higher education markets.
I'm not sure if I understand the bolded part, but If you are wondering about the subsidies at CSU for students, they work something like this: the State government hands a substantial portion of it's money to fund a uni, artificially depressing prices for instate students. And they also provide the students proper (courtesy of the federals) loans with ridiculously low interest. added to that the social and governmental mandate that "college=success" and that it's for everyone..... did I mention the ridiculous residency laws? in other states, I'd already be a resident (21, lived here 3 years), but Colorado has apparently said "fuck you" to logic, so I will not be able to get it...ever. because I'm already in my last semester at CSU, and want to get out ASAP, and pay my loans back..all 27,000$ of them (I'd owe more, but scholarships and my parents helped a lot-esp. the former).
and don't worry about the sarcasm thing...
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on February 05, 2012, 07:11:21 PM
I'm not sure if I understand the bolded part, but If you are wondering about the subsidies at CSU for students, they work something like this: the State government hands a substantial portion of it's money to fund a uni, artificially depressing prices for instate students. And they also provide the students proper (courtesy of the federals) loans with ridiculously low interest. added to that the social and governmental mandate that "college=success" and that it's for everyone..... did I mention the ridiculous residency laws? in other states, I'd already be a resident (21, lived here 3 years), but Colorado has apparently said "fuck you" to logic, so I will not be able to get it...ever. because I'm already in my last semester at CSU, and want to get out ASAP, and pay my loans back..all 27,000$ of them (I'd owe more, but scholarships and my parents helped a lot-esp. the former).
and don't worry about the sarcasm thing...
The bolded part "And how" usually means agreement, and that what it was a response to was an understatement.
*sighs*
You know, I really didn't want to add anymore to this thread, but my TA (whom I really thought would know better) made some shit I really cannot excuse.
Today, we have a special guest: Dave. :) The following was said over AIM (reposted with permission):
Me: So in my engineering ethics discussion section, I keep going on about how the "intent" in terms of law (e.g. following the intent of the law, not the letter) or punishing people for their intentions, doesn't even make sense unless you can read peoples minds. And the TA and the other students response to this? Repeat the argument again and/or ignore me. *facepalms*
D: circular reasoning
Me: Because fuck the results of actions, right?
D: we do something because we do something
Me: I mean, if Stalin's actions--that killed 60 million--people had "good intentions" would that seriously make things better? Give me a fucking break!
D: actually, circular reasoning is giving them too much credit.
circular reasoning at least has more than 1 point
Me: No kidding.
Yeah.
Me: Reminds me of when I would talk about how corporations being a legal person doesn't make any fucking sense. His response?
"Well, they need to do that so they can donate to political candidates anonymously."
Are you fucking shitting me?
That's a good reason to NOT have corporations you twat!
D: Well, it sounds to me like they are LTH's definition of evil
"the ends justify the means"
Me: Of course. We also read a case study about how General Motors followed all the laws and regulations, and did what ever other company at the time was doing. GovCo's response? Punish them for "high emissions". And my fucktarded TA went on about how, "Well, it's about following the intent of the law instead of the letter of the law."
I responded with, "Unless you can read their minds, how can you know the intent?"
He either ignores me and/or repeats the argument.
D: It's also special pleading really. If I kill someone, but I intended something great for them, it doesn't justify my murdering of that person.
Me: No kidding. As Shane would always say: Intentions are 100% irrelavent. Only actions and results matter.
D: exactly. People tend to believe intentions mean everything. That's because they like to defend concepts like "the noble thief"
Me: Fuck the noble thief.
D: sorry, but there is no such thing as a "noble thief"
Me: Indeed. "Noble thief" is a contradiction in terms. Like expropriating property protector.
D: Well remember, we were taught to praise characters like Robin Hood as kids: steal from the rich to give to the poor. leftist socialist bullshit
Me: To be fair, he stole from gov't which was overtaxing people, but the point still holds.
D: Of course some argue that he stole from the state; but that was never the phrase they used
Me: Which would make him closer to libertarian.
D: the phrase was always "steal from the rich to give to the poor."
Me: True. But he DID steal from the state, but again, gotta love the spin.
D: Exactly. They equate the state with all rich people. of course except when they want shit
Me: Which is massive equivocation, if not full on bigotry.
Something else my TA went on about was how he dislikes how when Ford designed the Pinto, that Ford tried to calculate the "value of a human life".
Dude.
You're defending the state, you have NO right to complain about loss of life you fucking twat.
D: Wasn't he the one who just earlier was defending "intentions over results"
Me: yes.
D: that is the very definition of "calculating the value of human life" Because who cares what happens to them as long as your intentions are good right?
Me: Yup.
D: Honestly, I think that moral bullshit comes from religitards
Me: Not to mention to the fact that Pintos were no less safe than any other vehicle at the time.
Yeah.
D: and I use "moral" loosely
Me: Indeed.
As for the GM thing? I had to call him out on that one. I can only take so much stupidity. I pointed out that, if they did follow the law, gov't had no reason to go after them. This was just a case of them throwing a hissy fit and temper tantrum. I was glad to see one student agreeing with me. Of course, he just said that gov should just close the loophole.
Yeah...
D: That's the same bullshit people use with the tax code
Me: How about not having govco regulate at all? Why not let private bodies like an equiv of UL do it? One person argued about private regulation. "But who will watch the watchers?"
D: We do
Me: Um, that ("Who will watch the watchers") applies to gov't far more than to private organizations. (Again, just look at UL!)
D: duh
Me: Funny you should mention that the intentions make the action mentality comes from religion. Because my TA admits that he was brought up in a very religious household; and believe me it shows.
D: Well, really, when you think about it, it's the same bullshit. you could be as much of a cunt in life as you want, as long as you "convert" on your death bed, you are golden
Me: Eyup.
D: Not to mention things like the crusades and witch hunts, all in the name of religion. "Oh sure, we killed all kinds of innocent people...but we did it in the name of GAWD"
I just experimented with a new format for these kinds of threads.
let me know what you think.
As for the Pinto:
How about the fact that Pintos would NOT explode* upon impact, it was all a bogus scare brought on by attention-seeking media? See the scientific examination of the evidence: http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf
Facts: The car was no more fire-prone than other cars of the time. The fatality rates were actually LOWER than similar-sized cars. And, oh yeah, this document supposedly showing that Ford was greedy and unfeeling was a document based on NHTSA regulations. Yes, that phrase everyone says is so indicative of free market greed is FROM THE GOVERNMENT!
Then of course, there's the fact that people weren't forced to buy the pintos...
I also didn't like how my TA went on about how, "Regardless of the car cost, safety should be included!" Translation: "Safety is a human right!"
Fuck you. If people are willing to pay less for less safety, it simply means they are satisfied with the current level of safety and would rather the additional money be spent on other things they need more urgently. YOU are not in a position to dictate what people will buy, you tyrannical prick.
*OK, to be fair, he didn't actually say that they exploded, but went on about a safety feature where if they are rear ended, the gas tank would be punctured by a bolt or something. Since Ford engineers were tasked to make the 2000 lb car cost less than $2000, they had to leave it there.
Of course, why they didn't just allow customers the option of buying the safety feature later on is beyond me.
Bonus: [yt]iPqdRqacpFk[/yt]
Something else that pisses me off from this class is (from the professor, the TA, and from the textbook): "Well, engineering; like medicine is professional field with knowledge that most laypeople can't grasp. This means that it is very easy for engineers and doctors to scam the public--they won't know when they've been scammed, or who did it. So it's up to you to be ethical; to police yourselves. Or, in many cases, for the government--our democracy to step in and regulate."
(Because fuck the Wisdom of Crowds, right? Or the 100 years of research verifying it. Then how do they explain UL? They deal with electronics and specialized knowledge and have for full on a century and have never had the issue of corruption. Also, if they believe that "We The People are the Government" platitude bullshit--which they most likely do, they're even stupider. What they'd be saying is. "We the people can't regulate the professionals, so we'll have We the people regulate the professionals." Some consistency would be nice. Gotta love the elitism.)
Another common quip from my professor is the idea of having government and the country run by experts.
Because that worked so well for the USSR, right?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2012, 06:18:14 PM
Another common quip from my professor is the idea of having government and the country run by experts.
Because that worked so well for the USSR, right?
And we saw what the Nazis did with experts.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2012, 06:28:22 PMAnd we saw what the Nazis did with experts.
I forget. What did the Nazis do with experts?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2012, 06:43:25 PM
I forget. What did the Nazis do with experts?
Slaughtered millions.....
Quote from: D on February 20, 2012, 07:50:37 PMSlaughtered millions.....
What do you mean? Are you saying the Nazis slaughtered millions of experts? Or are you saying they used their expertise to slaughter millions of other people?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2012, 07:57:36 PM
What do you mean? Are you saying the Nazis slaughtered millions of experts? Or are you saying they used their expertise to slaughter millions of other people?
The latter
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2012, 06:43:25 PM
I forget. What did the Nazis do with experts?
Like Karl Brandt and that crowd.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 20, 2012, 08:11:37 PMLike Karl Brandt and that crowd.
*One Google search later* oooooh. Yeah. That was the first thing that came to mind when I read your post.
The following is posted to serve as a bit of background for my next post of TA fail. I referenced the boldface bit when talking about the engineering issues of the levies from Hurricane Katrina. Long story, short, the TA responded with, "I don't think that is relevant. Well, I'll have to look into that. I don't think anyone was forced to leave there."
From 6:55 to about 8:29 of this video:
[yt]yAa6dYBwy7M[/yt]
[Thunderf00t]: "The socioeconomic scars of this history are graphically visible in the United States, and I speak with the experience of one who has seen more of it than most. You can still walk in many areas of America from a white neighborhood to a black neighborhood and watch the quality of housing drop, and the number of people on the streets increase as their wealth decreases. It's visually conspicuous. The only way you can not see it is denial. Well? Does anyone have any comments on the effectiveness of the healing of these socio-economicscars, in a primarily capitalistic society?"
But we're NOT primarily a capitalist society! We're primarily a CORPORATIST society, and have been for full on a century now! These are NOT problems stemming from the free market. The reasons for the racial disparity stem from government actions. It's easy to see how the Jim Crow laws led to this; what isn't easy to see is how government attempts to help this situation--put forth by well-meaning people--have contributed to the continuing poverty of these areas. The victims of Katrina and other disasters are largely black because of government housing projects. They built these projects in areas where no one else wanted to live. But there's a reason why no one else wants to live there. In Katrina, it was only the areas that were below sea level that were a problem; people who lived in the original French settlements got off relatively lightly.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 20, 2012, 08:15:05 PM
*One Google search later* oooooh. Yeah. That was the first thing that came to mind when I read your post.
Not quite one of German's BEST minds, though. I once saw a wonderful comparison of what the (admittedly fascist on both sides) Western Allies and Nazi Germany did with their Best minds:
The (Western) Allies put their Best Minds into R&D.
Nazi Germany put their Best Minds into...concentration camps.
(The USSR did BOTH in at least some notable cases. Their camps were somewhat slower at being lethal as well.)
Quote from: evensgrey on February 24, 2012, 03:43:32 PM(The USSR did BOTH in at least some notable cases. Their camps were somewhat slower at being lethal as well.)
Funny you should mention this. As part of the readings for this same class, we're reading a case study on a Russian Engineer called "Peter Palchinsky: Ghost of the Executed Engineer"
It points out that he kept giving engineering and humanitarian advice to the Bolshevik government, and, despite a stellar track record of both efficiency AND working conditions greatly improving where his advice WAS taken prior in the Tsarist government, Stalin and Lenin would ignore him. Eventually, Stalin ordered he be shot (1929) and so he was.
It also pointed out more than 5000 slave laborers who lost their lives in a canal project alone, AND the number of engineers decreasing from 10k to about 7k "with most simply disappearing" (read: getting shot).
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 28, 2012, 04:55:43 PM
Funny you should mention this. As part of the readings for this same class, we're reading a case study on a Russian Engineer called "Peter Palchinsky: Ghost of the Executed Engineer"
It points out that he kept giving engineering and humanitarian advice to the Bolshevik government, and, despite a stellar track record of both efficiency AND working conditions greatly improving where his advice WAS taken prior in the Tsarist government, Stalin and Lenin would ignore him. Eventually, Stalin ordered he be shot (1929) and so he was.
It also pointed out more than 5000 slave laborers who lost their lives in a canal project alone, AND the number of engineers decreasing from 10k to about 7k "with most simply disappearing" (read: getting shot).
The specific instance I was thinking of was a rocket engineer who worked on weapons research while in prison during WWII.
In class, we were discussing morals; from either the universalism approach; or the utilitarian approach. The former defined as: "positive rights for all!" (healthcare, food, etc). The latter being "Greatest good for greater number of people, regardless of the minority."
I nearly threw up on the inside when our professor discussed the idea of a moral question of national debt; admitting that "yeah, it does cost the unborn and the young. But the question is, do we defer gratification of our infrastructure and risk future issues, or respect their rights?"
Granted, that's a paraphrase.
At least the "or respect their rights?" part was.
Needless to say, bullshit like this gov't debt crap is a reason I'm not having children. Fuck you GovCo. You don't have the right to my unborn children.
Another bit from my textbook made my brain's logic circuit short. It was two people arguing over whether a new gov't regulation is justified.
The one in support of it said, "The burden of proof should rest on anyone who wants to expose a worker to even a possible danger."
No, it doensn't you fucking asshole. It rests on whoever makes the positive claim. You are making the positive claim that it is moral to put a gun to an employer's head and force them to provide this or that for safety with no evidence that them not doing so would even endanger the workers. You are the one putting people's lives at risk you sanctimonious asshole.
And yes, because anyone against gov't regulation is doing it because he hates workers, the environment, the poor, grandma, puppies, children's smiles, etc. Give me a fucking break! The person disagreeing gave a solid case (lack of positive evidence) for not wanting the new regulation.
And even then, that doesn't mean free market people or people arguing against gov't regulation are against ALL regulation. Ever heard of UL? ISO9000? We just believe regulation is done better by a competitive, bottom up organization.
The guy also goes on about how if the risk was comparable to driving a car, it's different, because when a person drives a car, they are aware of and choose that risk, but not when voluntarily agreeing to work around dangerous chemicals? Piss off.