Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[kaijyuu]

I'm uninterested in the specifics of the political debate, but I'll weigh on on some of the philosophies~

What is the purpose of universities? You could say that it's about teaching critical thinking, but that's not been a proven outcome. I daresay many people enter college looking to advance up the job market food-chain. So universities become de facto vocational training for the knowledge economy. Therefore we have to grade them based on the aspirations of their students, not some emotional tripe about education being a good unto itself.

Do you want to hear a real crazy person? Here you go, from that same article... "The governor offended me as a UNC student, as a social science major, as a North Carolinian and as a public-education-supporting Democrat," Booker said. "It is our minds that enrich society, not our careers."

In crazyland, you can eat thoughts, drive thoughts to starbucks, and your iPhone is conjured up by thinking about its existence. None of these things are created by people holding down a job. The iPhone is not created by engineers with specialist educations that built up a career by hard work. It's created by ruminating about third-wave feminism over coffee.

I don't want her mind or its thoughts, the observed product of which so far is muddle-headed uncritical thought deifying her professors. I don't think her mind actually can produce anything that I would regard as wealth.

Is "enriching" society limited to gaining additional wealth? Ideas can enrich society too; look at every social revolution ever. Learning generates critical thinking, which generates ideas, which changes the status quo into something better. Capitalism itself was an idea by an educated person. So yes, there's more value to universities than advancing careers.

As far as the "emotional tripe" of learning for learning's sake, realize that gaining money is almost no one's end goal. They want to buy something with that money, and THAT is their end goal. For many people, they buy learning. You can get the best job ever and all the money in the world, but if you don't have anything to spend it on that makes you happy, it is worthless.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

While we're discussing it, here's an infographic of all state gun laws.

[Loud Whispers]

[Post to fascism]
[Get back to work]

[Trollheiming]

You certainly don't think New York, Illinois, and California are sane with such debt levels, do you?

Considering that all three of those states are making money for the Union instead of draining it, yes.

Manna from heaven, eh? That federal money is coming off the money tree, so no need to ask who paid the most taxes. Taxes no longer bear any relation to spending, so making that assumption marks you as a bit out-of-step.

Look, the reason why many red states have high federal spending-to-GDP is that they start off more rural and less developed. New York has some military installations, but its economy is already so big that this spending is dwarfed by taxes. Put the same base in Wyoming, and it suddenly becomes a major factor in spending-to-GDP. But the key here is that a country needs to have bases and installations and infrastructure everywhere, so every state is going to get some spending. Federal spending spread equally over all the state won't compare equally in each state's own economies, but in absolute terms, the red states are actually not getting that sweet of a deal.

Which states have the most federal spending? Do you know? Here's federal spending without your statistical chicanery of crunching it against their GDPs. Absolute spending. Look who gets the most spending! New York, Illinois, and California!

We've already thrown aside the notion that taxes being skimmed off the GDP are related to the spending coming out of Washington, so absolutely-speaking, those three states are getting the majority of the runaway spending. Taxes stopped being the reins long ago.

Is severe unserviceable debt a sane practice?

Yes.

...

I have to assume that you didn't read the unserviceable part. It's no mystery what happens next.

For a group that preaches the benefits of capitalism, conservatives don't seem to get this very much. You have to spend money to make money. That is how making money works. Investment is the only way to get a net gain. Is it a gamble? Yes. Every economic decision is a gamble. But not playing the game doesn't help us, it means we'll never make money.

You take on debt for a short while and then service that debt with a profitable investment. We already know that the investments being made at the federal level are not profitable. It's something like thirty cents on a dollar of new debt. You don't operate a business at those levels of malinvestment for long, and you bloody well know it.

As loathe as I am to quote him:

If you owe the bank one hundred thousand dollars, you're a liability. If you owe the bank one hundred million dollars, you sit on the board of directors.

If you are so loathe to quote him, why not show your proficiency at economics and realize that Trump was paraphasing the big K himself. And given your explanation, I must assume that you are a devotee of Keynesianism.

Debt puts our foot in the door. It gives us influence, because eventually some of that money is going to be paid back even if we aren't debt free. It's economic MAD and it is the only thing that keeps our current financial system spinning.

If the debt seems serviceable. Otherwise, you've got a lot of broke bastards after a panic. This has played out in other countries, from Argentina to Zimbabwe. It's not an unknown quantity. We know what excess debt does after people wise up to the fact. You say it can go on forever, and only reality itself exists to prove that wrong. Even Keynes didn't articulate sustained unserviceable debt, but it has fallen to that level now.

You've spoken against increasing taxes before, so let me tell you: If you want America to ever be in a position in which raising taxes won't be necessary to keep the country running, the government has to play the game. It's that or increased taxation, far more increased than it will have to be to fund money-making projects. Call it an investment into our collective financial future.

My only problem with taxes is an observable 85 year pattern of widely-varying tax policies hardly denting a 20% threshold. Other than that, I'd prefer taxes to debt, and spending cuts to taxes. Spending a dollar to make thirty cents, and taxing 20% of that "profit" is not a sustainable policy.

[Nadaka]

While we're discussing it, here's an infographic of all state gun laws.

I can not allow enough javascript to get that page to show anything other than ads.

I've gone through temporarily allow all scripts 8 times in a row, and it still has not shown any content.

[Trollheiming]

Is "enriching" society limited to gaining additional wealth? Ideas can enrich society too; look at every social revolution ever. Learning generates critical thinking, which generates ideas, which changes the status quo into something better. Capitalism itself was an idea by an educated person. So yes, there's more value to universities than advancing careers.

The people who really advance our lives with their ideas are so filled with passion that often university can be a mere distraction. The thought of wasting four years in university was jettisoned by the likes of Gates, Zuckerberg, Dell, and Jobs.

Learning does not generate critical thinking. It's possible to graduate college without a single critical thought, simply remashing the received knowledge. Professors can't tell you how to think. You can be taught facts and theories, and you can build your knowledge base, but an amazing number of university graduates couldn't tell you the meaning of magister dixit, which is unfortunate because it's the sum total of their four years. Even viewing critical thought as a necessary requirement for learning shows that not enough critical thought has been applied to a hackneyed truism.

As far as the "emotional tripe" of learning for learning's sake, realize that gaining money is almost no one's end goal. They want to buy something with that money, and THAT is their end goal. For many people, they buy learning. You can get the best job ever and all the money in the world, but if you don't have anything to spend it on that makes you happy, it is worthless.

Learning is cool, but it can be done everywhere. Often at no cost. There's a lesson in every situation, and a popular saying around these here parts is "If I walk with two people, one of them is my teacher" which Confucius articulated to mean that we learn from everyone, not just established authorities.

Buying education is like that fat slob who buys a bowflex to decorate his corner. If it gets to the point that you're buying an education for the sake of an education, best look to yourself and examine whether you're really buying assurance and validation rather than true knowledge. You just might be buying the feeling of knowledge, not knowledge in its true form.

[Scoops Novel]

I am tired troll. Tell me why you named yourself what you did. Tell me why you believe what you believe, if it's true. Tell me if you're being devils advocate, or whatever the hell it is. I do not want another bloody derail dissecting the finer points of more claptrap on both political leanings.

Preemptive Edit: I'll be honest, i haven't read the whole thread. I just took you saying that the people who really advance our lives often treating university as a distraction, read the quote, thought back to prior posts, and did the maths as to how this will end.

[Trollheiming]

I am tired troll. Tell me why you named yourself what you did. Tell me why you believe what you believe, if it's true. Tell me if you're being devils advocate, or whatever the hell it is. I do not want another bloody derail dissecting the finer points of more claptrap on both political leanings.

It's a good stout name. Actually, if you go back to my first post, I have followed DF forums for a long time since it was 2d, but when a crappy game called Battle Master gathered some interest here, I went over to play the game with other DF followers. Shenanigans ensued. A Battle Master person came over here to talk about what an ass I was being in Battle Master. I hadn't ever made an account here, so one Escaped Lunatic duelled another that day on the DF forums. I felt a bit trollish in finally setting up my account purely to answer him, hence the name.

And what is trollish about saying that education is not a worthy end in itself? I assume that is where you take exception. It's true, and it shouldn't be too controversial. Wisdom is always a worthy end, but there are many ways to gain wisdom, and the least of these is from classes on the subject.

Also, spitting out arguments pro- and contra- is called critical thought, you know. Being a critic rather than a passive consumer. I'm not here to waste people's time with poor arguments; but nonetheless, here is your chance to engage that vaunted critical thinking turbo-booster otherwise known as a university degree!

[pisskop]

Ima ptw.

Let the show begin!

[Scoops Novel]

Troll, the problem is hyperbole ("emotional tripe", obvious correlations between high standards of education and one that is not a witchburning one, etc), badly backed graphs, and quoting out of context. You know i could dig up 20 and more such examples from older threads, and I'm prepared to put some down to human error, but it's getting willful. It would likely help if i, at least, had a better idea of your political standpoint.

[Euld]

Oh god why am I here, posting in this thread ._.

Spoiler: spoiled for length (click to show/hide)

I agree with the notion that no university degree will ever automatically instill the power of critical thinking in everyone who earns one, thus anyone who has a degree isn't an automatic critical thinker.  And I do see where you're going with the idea that a student needs to do more than just get a degree, if they only get one to reassure themselves/buy time/just go because, it most likely won't amount to anything.  How do I know this?  I did this.  I have a degree in Creative Writing and all I use it for is to argue on the internet, make witty Facebook comments, and tutor other students for their English classes.  While I was earning my degree, I never tried to make my degree work or make myself employable during my schooling, I simply thought the pieces would fall into place.  They didn't, because I didn't try to put them there.

Learning is cool, but it can be done everywhere. Often at no cost.

Now this I disagree with.  Allow me to use my second point to refute this statement.  After a few years of stagnating, stifling myself while living in my parent's basement, I decided to go after another degree, but this time, with employability in mind.  Has it worked?  Not yet, still in school.  But because I was actually thinking, planning, designing how this process was going to go, my ability to see things critically has grown.  Not because I'm after a degree, but because of me.  But!  This new degree is a catalyst, I needed the risk, the loans spent, the pressure, the social interaction with peers with similar goals to actually make myself improve.  How do I know I needed this?  Because I examined myself critically and realized I need those pressures to learn, curse the school system for molding my learning process to only function in this environment.  And technically yes, everything I've learned could have been learned somewhere else, from various sources in various places.

However, there was absolutely no chance of me learning everything I've learned now at the same pace, rigor, for free or even a reduced cost.  It would require an entirely different frame of reference that was unavailable from my point in life.  Just couldn't happen.  Instead of just flopping around the internet or the bookstore for an education, I pay real professionals to actually teach me what they do.  It's faster, more efficient, and motivates me.  Not something I want to admit, but it's true.

Hm that was a lot.  Let me sum it all up:
1. Degrees don't guarantee critical thinking
2. Degrees aren't useless, but become useless if the learner isn't putting in the extra time to learn what they need
3. All the information available in school can be found elsewhere, but whether a person is able to find that information at all without knowing what to look for is another matter

[misko27]

Why can these threads never die? These things have more life then a DF zombie. Not even flames kill it. (Puns intended)
 
I just want to state I did not deserve so much credit for the demise of the previous thread. That's blaming Italy for WW2. I mean sure I was there, and you couldn't argue I was helping, but no one was paying attention, and the overall help I gave to derailing it was insignificant.
 
Anyway, as the issue of higher education Is one I do not care nor know much about, I cannot currently contribute much, so please return to your regularly scheduled arguement.

[Trollheiming]

Troll, the problem is hyperbole ("emotional tripe", obvious correlations between high standards of education and one that is not a witchburning one, etc), badly backed graphs, and quoting out of context. You know i could dig up 20 and more such examples from older threads, and I'm prepared to put some down to human error, but it's getting willful. It would likely help if i, at least, had a better idea of your political standpoint.

I believe that you're the guy who's always setting up a new thread like "What's your favorite sandwich?" and so on. It's surreal that I'm justifying myself to you. Okay, fine. My graphs were well-backed by federal tax data, if I know the infamous graph that you're referencing here. Interpretations of that data can be various, but the data continues to be well-backed--even if you don't like my particular interpretation. My interpretation was a flotation of an idea that I've had, and I am willing to admit that it could be wrong. Yet it bears inspection.

Hyperbole and quoting of out context? No idea what you're talking about. If you can't provide examples, then I have to assume you're just spitting out a gut feeling that amounts to "I disagree with this, therefore this has to be wrong somehow" and that is not true.

Learning is cool, but it can be done everywhere. Often at no cost.

Now this I disagree with. 

We agree in substance.

I was setting up a distinction between education and learning. If you're pursuing a focused skill set with the objective of being useful and marketable, it's hard to avoid taking structured classes for it. Yet a great deal is learned outside of formal education. I was thinking of desultory learning in the sense of maintaining a curious mind. I do think that is a noble aspiration. Personally, I like studying history and tinkering with graphics on inkscape and photoshop. I like dabbling in stocks and commodities markets, some days more than others. I like discussing philosophy, economics, and I can become an armchair anything at a moment's notice. I like learning many diverse subjects, and I won't ever stop, but I am done with formal education.

From my perspective, in a country where students go to school 17 hours a day, formal education does not seem something to be unquestioningly elevated. To be 高分低能 is a well-known category of student here: to ace all the tests, but fail at any application of knowledge. Education in itself does not make anyone better or smarter. It increases the knowledge base. That's it. What you can do with that knowledge is up to you. People who fail to make this connection are often the boors who end up with five degrees and can't wait to tell you about them. 

[Scelly9]

PTW

[PanH]

PTWFAL