The lack of cost-constraints just means that the price of tuition doesn't deter people from going through higher education. Credit is highly available in both the US and the UK higher education systems.

Okay. But as Mordo said earlier, the only reason people are going to college is because they've been essentially fed this idea that they've failed at life if they don't. Which is a problem, but that's your reason. It's not because people don't feel constrained--they are. They just accept it as a "necessary" evil (when it's actually an unnecessary evil). So that's a problem with our zeitgeist. Destroy the notion that college is necessary.

The point is that you can't file for bankruptcy.

Right, and I agree with you that that's a problem. What I'm asking, though, is how much of a solution would it really be if you could? From what I know, filing for bankruptcy sounds like a big hassle that no one should have to go through. And they would.

It is accessible.

Accessible wasn't the right word--affordable would've worked better, even though I know you don't think it's unaffordable, either. Though, obviously, my point is that it ought to be more accessible. More affordable.

Is it affordable now? Yeah.
Yeah, anyone can save up enough cash to eventually pay off all their debt in a timely fashion. Sure. Totally.

...If they also want to starve to death and rot on the streets sad, tired, and alone. But that's not on very many people's agenda.

Quote

If more people come to college because of its accessibility... who cares?

Everybody should if it makes their degrees fucking worthless.

Well, it wouldn't, first of all. You still have to get the degree, you realize, and that takes some hard motherfucking work. Free college =/= free degree. For every brain surgeon in the world, there are probably a thousand people who couldn't quite make the cut. If you're worried that standards would somehow be lowered to accommodate the sheer number of new students, then I'm all for maintaining the high standards colleges have, or at least, should have.

Second, how can you possibly apply such economic principles to college degrees anyway? Worthless? Having more people taking the same degree makes the degree worthless to you? Not even "worth less", but worthless. Do you really mean that? You're gonna pass up having a thousand doctors, because only having a hundred doctors is "worth more"? What do you mean by "worthless"? Is having ten doctors better than having two thousand doctors? Is it really?

I don't think getting a degree should be a matter of illusory, make-believe economic concepts like "worth". That sounds like a really bad joke to me, unless I'm just completely missing your point. I hope I am.

Because I don't think there's such a thing as "too many doctors". "Too many engineers." Whatever.
There could never be enough of either of those two things.

I meant to say the positive externalities are minimal; like, pollution is a negative externality because it incurs costs on third-parties not involved in the transaction. In the same vein, college education doesn't incur any substantial benefits on third-parties not involved in the transaction, so funding HE through taxation is rather pointless and I'd say immoral. You're taking money from other people to fund something they will see minimal benefit from.

i mean, fair enough, but like i said earlier--i'd be proud to help students out

and i think anyone with a good bone in their body would and should be, too

Quote from: Naru on August 12, 2015, 01:11:38 AM

Quote from: SHAWN BEEN on August 12, 2015, 12:39:06 AM

Where did you even work?

mcniggers

I feel embarrassed for you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Don%27t_You_Kill_Yourself%3F

unfortunately something like this is never going to happen in the near future, because when the majority of americans hear the words "more taxes" they flip out and veto that policy to hell.

I would be PROUD knowing that my tax dollars are helping build the next generation of doctors, engineers, and scientists. Yes, even the humble writers and artists. Fuck anyone who wouldn't be. Like, FUCK them. Fuck them with every object within reach.

No. Nothing is "free".

While this is obviously true, it's also obviously missing the point.

They're both 5/10s.

Also LotR is shit.

I don't get it

the winner of the match got the least rewards

uh, i think

Typical humans.

BRUISER BRIGADE

but don't forget the brew

Quote from: Verbatim on August 11, 2015, 09:18:43 PM

Quote from: Fun Timer on August 11, 2015, 09:17:39 PM

Watch the one Verbatim watched.
Can't remember the name, started with a y?

Uh, the Gift? Not a y, but that's the last movie I remember talking about here.

Wait, wasn't there one one of your friends made you watch? A Japanese horror film?

OH YEAH

Hausu.

Would not recommend unless you want a laugh.

time to fap to oppai loli's

durrr no such thing

Literally none of these words are offensive.

well, historically, "oriental" is offensive because it's chiefly used to describe objects
like, an oriental vase

so, calling a person "oriental" is like saying they're an inanimate object

and "illegal alien" has a heavily negative connotation, so it could be construed as offensive depending on the person

that's it, though

Sheik has to work SO hard to get any KOs...

wait, why did my controller stop working ugh

edit:
okay we're back
no idea

It makes the elimination stage more fair. It's so that people who play better don't get shafted by playing the possibly other finalist right away. Basically it's just evening the playing field when it comes to elimination.

Ah, okay. Gotcha.

It's only in A for me >.>

Same. I only gotta fight you and Rocketman, apparently. Meh, I'll run with it.

Like, what happens when both groups are finished? What's the purpose of the group stage?