This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 828384 8586 ... 502
2491
« on: January 17, 2016, 11:14:36 AM »
So?
We have a legitimate basis by which to judge him. Having data about who supports a certain candidate does allow us to draw conclusions. I'm not saying the OP is correct, merely that his point is not fallacious.
2492
« on: January 17, 2016, 10:49:53 AM »
Palestinians being crazy fucks is largely Israel's fault
Not really, Palestinian support for Hamas has been steadily dropping for a while now, even throughout Operation Cast Lead. The problem is Hamas and other fundamentalist Palestinian groups, not the Palestinians themselves (most of them, today, at least).
2493
« on: January 17, 2016, 10:47:31 AM »
Worthless ad hominem that isn't worth a second thought.
Pretty much what I was thinking.
You could just as easily, and just as erroneously say that all Conservatives are just gun toting racists.
Except it's not entirely clear that support for Cruz is disproportionately racist gun-owners. It is clear that a disproportionate amount of Sanders' support comes from the young.
2494
« on: January 16, 2016, 01:18:20 PM »
Then the problem is that people without the skills or qualifications then are the state of being and underclass. Doesn't this sort of happen already?
Yeah, and it's going to get worse if we don't properly re-organise the education sector's organisation and operation. It's a process called skill-biased technical change, where those whose productivity is boosted via technology receive higher wages than those who have not had their productivity boosted (i.e. a lot of people without qualifications or many marketable skills).
So what's the alternative? What I mean is, what's the proper way to reorganize the education system to maximize outreach and still function adequately in a socioeconomic sense?
A lot of Americans don't appreciate their higher edcuation system relative to the rest of the world. There are no credit constraints on the poorest, the higher debt burden following tertiary education usually motivates people to look for employment in higher-paying fields and a lot of people don't recognise that miseducation (or, people getting too much of the 'wrong' degree) is harming the poorest in society by inflating the supply of credentials in an economy. The solution is to reform primary and secondary education, and then talk about the best way to organise higher education, rather than reform the way universities operate and hope primary and secondary education will somehow be positively effected by this.
2495
« on: January 16, 2016, 11:06:15 AM »
Then the problem is that people without the skills or qualifications then are the state of being and underclass. Doesn't this sort of happen already?
Yeah, and it's going to get worse if we don't properly re-organise the education sector's organisation and operation. It's a process called skill-biased technical change, where those whose productivity is boosted via technology receive higher wages than those who have not had their productivity boosted (i.e. a lot of people without qualifications or many marketable skills).
2496
« on: January 15, 2016, 11:58:58 PM »
Employers will do so in a labour market of which is saturated with higher education. That's a bad thing?
More jobs for everyone?
. . .
How do you take that from what I said?
An extremely poor understanding of this topic.
The problem is when the labour market has too many people with degrees. If almost everybody has a Bach degree, it certainly wouldn't be unusual for businesses to include it as a minimum requirement. Then the problem is that people without the skills or qualifications then are the state of being and underclass.
2497
« on: January 15, 2016, 11:50:13 PM »
Why the fuck would you post on a fucking shit-ass forum while tripping?
Because we're all out of MD, and because we're all just sat listening to music right now.
2498
« on: January 15, 2016, 11:34:47 PM »
 Look at me and pay attention to my degeneracy.
2499
« on: January 15, 2016, 11:31:03 PM »
Employers will do so in a labour market of which is saturated with higher education. That's a bad thing?
More jobs for everyone?
. . . How do you take that from what I said?
2500
« on: January 15, 2016, 11:29:41 PM »
So do you guys not think that the levels of student dept some people have to deal with is stupidly high?
The entire rise in tuition costs has been driven over the past few decades of ham-fisted governmental reforms. Even if we agreed that student debt is too high, it doesn't follow that Bernie's proposals have any greater legitimacy over conservative policies in fighting high student debt.
2501
« on: January 15, 2016, 09:55:43 PM »
Isn't the entire point of free tuition to minimize the unemployment of the "Least educated" by offering school to everyone? Ostemsibly, but evidence from both Scotland and Germany suggests that such policies disproportionately benefit the middle-class, not the working-class. I don't understand what you mean by employers will just begin to demand them "Because they can."
Employers will do so in a labour market of which is saturated with higher education.
2502
« on: January 15, 2016, 02:29:27 PM »
I mean, call me stupid, but I feel like education is, like, more important.
False dichotomy. The argument has nothing to do with a society's general level of education, which everybody agrees ought to be increasing, but with how the tertiary level interacts with the other levels. The entire point of university degrees is to act as signallers for a certain skillset. If almost everybody has a degree, employers will begin to demand them just because they can. Which ultimately just hurts the least educated in terms of employment.
2503
« on: January 15, 2016, 04:28:39 AM »
College for All: Sen. Sanders has proposed making public colleges and universities tuition-free and substantially reducing student debt, in a plan that would cost about $75 billion a year. Please please please
>implying it will retroactively pay for your college
>implying it won't cost you money and devalue the education you paid for
o i am laffin
Why do you say either of those things
Free tuition seems to be something other countries do, and it works fine for them.
No, it really doesn't.
2504
« on: January 14, 2016, 08:26:09 PM »
is ubiquitous education really bad in the long term?
No, we already have ubiquitous education. The point is about tertiary education's place with relation to the entire system.
2505
« on: January 14, 2016, 08:06:23 PM »
This is ironically conservative. Really? I think it's a pretty neutral statement, actually. You'd have to be cripplingly selfish and myopic not to recognize that your life does not matter as much as those in your wake will, but selflessness is not a concept I expect libertarians such as Door to be too familiar with.
I'm not saying it's exclusively conservative, but the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism can be traced easily back to Burke and his intergenerational contract.
2506
« on: January 14, 2016, 07:49:47 PM »
Future generations matter more than you do. This is ironically conservative. Education is invaluable. While I like the romanticism and agree with your fundamental point that education is justified as an end in itself, we aren't talking about "education". We're talking about a specific portion of a larger educational programme which interacts with other sections of the education and the labour market in empirical ways. People are being mis-educated on a substantial scale, and while higher education should also be something in which the government has a substantial degree of control there is no evidence whatsoever than Sanders' plans are the correct ones.
2507
« on: January 14, 2016, 05:06:47 PM »
Reckon I could stream in the U.K., or will I have to use a proxy?
2508
« on: January 14, 2016, 02:51:52 PM »
Why is it the Republican base has seemed to be much more radical than the establishment for so long?
Bush, McCain and Romney were basically moderates installed by the moderate-neocon wing of the establishment. And look at the people of the base: Trump and Cruz, two decidedly anti-establishment candidates.
Will respond later
Ayyy, was hoping you'd see it.
2509
« on: January 14, 2016, 01:18:51 PM »
Why is it the Republican base has seemed to be much more radical than the establishment for so long?
Bush, McCain and Romney were basically moderates installed by the moderate-neocon wing of the establishment. And look at the people of the base: Trump and Cruz, two decidedly anti-establishment candidates.
2510
« on: January 14, 2016, 01:05:18 PM »
Don't you vehemently oppose a minimum wage?
No. I've maintained that NIT is preferable to minimum wages, state minimum wages are better than federal ones and a $10/hr MW (see: Dube) is preferable to leaving it alone. And let's be honest, the federal minimum wage isn't going away.
2511
« on: January 14, 2016, 12:35:57 PM »
The only thing I can really get behind is paid parental leave, as long as it's shared.
2512
« on: January 14, 2016, 12:29:49 PM »
Shame he didn't win in 2012.Mitt Romney does his best to maintain a public presence, even taking occasional rhetorical shots at the president who defeated him, though he rarely has unkind words about his own party.
The former governor, however, did talk to the Washington Post recently about the one issue on which he believes Republicans are “nuts.”
Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee, has been encouraging party leaders to develop better policies to address wage stagnation. For instance, he supports raising the federal minimum wage, a departure from Republican orthodoxy.
“As a party we speak a lot about deregulation and tax policy, and you know what? People have been hearing that for 25 years, and they’re getting tired of that message,” Romney said in a recent interview. He added, “I think we’re nuts not to raise the minimum wage. I think, as a party, to say we’re trying to help the middle class of America and the poor and not raise the minimum wage sends exactly the wrong signal.”
In case anyone’s forgotten, as conservative as Romney’s 2012 platform was on a whole host of issues, he also endorsed a minimum-wage hike – and even supported indexing it to inflation.
Looking ahead, the failed candidate appears to be offering his party some valuable advice. The Post’s article detailed the GOP’s growing certainty about the importance of working-class white voters in the 2016 cycle, coupled with the challenge Republicans face in offering these voters an agenda they’ll support.
It’s not rocket science: working-class whites support a minimum-wage increase, and they’d likely be more inclined to support a Republican presidential candidate who intends to deliver one.
But this year, that’s not going to happen, Romney’s advice notwithstanding.
Over the weekend, there was a forum in South Carolina – the Kemp Forum on Expanding Opportunity – featuring six Republican presidential candidates, all of whom shared their thoughts on combating poverty. None endorsed increasing the minimum wage.
In fact, a surprising number of GOP candidates this year have publicly argued that the federal minimum wage should be $0. Carly Fiorina has suggested the law itself is unconstitutional, and Donald Trump, the alleged “populist” of the Republican field, also opposes an increase.
In October, Marco Rubio went so far as to say that Americans can’t live off jobs that pay only $10 or $11 per hour, but he nevertheless opposes an increase from the current $7.25. In fact, the senator has also criticized the existence of the federal minimum wage.
Romney’s advice may be sound, but it’s going unheeded. Anybody know of any PolSci literature about the effects of U.S. primaries on the expressed ideology of the candidates.
2513
« on: January 13, 2016, 01:38:09 PM »
Ayyyyyy, academia lives.Oxford University students unable to embrace Cecil Rhodes legacy “should think about being educated elsewhere”, the institution’s chancellor has said.
"What actually Rhodes did at the end of his life was to leave his whole fortune to a scholarship programme which has helped to ensure that Oxford University manages to be a university for the whole world."
Lord Patten
Lord Patten also said his university enjoys its current global standing because of the contribution made by Rhodes and the funding he left behind to allow students from all nationalities to study at Oxford.
His comments follow weeks of debate over whether a statue of the colonialist politician should be removed from Oriel College following a petition from the Rhodes Must Fall movement to get rid of it.
The debate over whether the statue should fall was reignited this week at the initiation of Professor Louise Richardson as the university’s first female vice-chancellor in nearly 800 years.
Patten said members of the Rhodes Must Fall movement should be prepared to show the “generosity of spirit” Nelson Mandela showed when he joined forces with the Rhodes Trust to help poor students in South Africa have access to the British politician’s funding.
Speaking to Radio 4 Today’s Programme, Lord Patten said: “We are giving them the respect to listening to their views even if we don’t agree with them.
"But if people at our university aren’t prepared to show the generosity of spirit which Nelson Mandela showed towards Rhodes and towards history, if they are not prepared to embrace all those values which are contained in the most important book for any undergraduate – Karl Popper’s Open Society – if they are not prepared to embrace those issues, then maybe they should think about being educated elsewhere.
2514
« on: January 12, 2016, 08:39:20 PM »
This is like the #1 show on Netflix right now; there's no way you shits people haven't seen it yet.
Sorry, been watching House.
2515
« on: January 10, 2016, 09:06:14 PM »
A devout Christian learns there is no god and has a crisis of identity -- an agnostic sees it as enlightenment. Sure, but we can talk objectively about the aggregate effect of some subjective phenomena. I would say it's fairly naive to give a generalized answer to this question at all. I'm not asking for a generalised answer, really, I'm more interested in your moral principles. When forced to choose, even if only in a single and highly improbably situation, I want to know what you would do.
2516
« on: January 10, 2016, 08:44:39 PM »
Something things aren't worth ruining society as a whole to discover Like what, and in what way would it ruin society?
National security secrets; some people have existential crises in response to either a loss of religion or determinism, an uncomfortable truth significant enough could have society-wide implications which aren't positive; you could argue the knowledge of how to build an atomic bomb would be a net negative (although I wouldn't necessarily agree). There are numerous hypothetical scenarios in which a piece of information could deal damage to a society; even if you don't accept the empirical examples, I'm looking more at your moral principles than your conclusions regarding the nature of truth and its impact.
2517
« on: January 10, 2016, 08:14:00 PM »
Loaded question; the truth inexorably leads to societal well-being.
I knew somebody would say this; it's not a satisfactory defence. I doubt you have much empirical evidence for every instance of truth-seeking to promote societal well-being, and such a claim is certainly not justified a priori.
2518
« on: January 10, 2016, 08:10:30 PM »
Pretty standard question.
2519
« on: January 10, 2016, 08:08:48 PM »
Snopes seems pretty unbiased to me, although I'm not a regular reader.
2520
« on: January 09, 2016, 12:37:53 PM »
My buddy Jim Beam is cheering me up.
Scotch > Kentucky whiskey.
Pages: 1 ... 828384 8586 ... 502
|
Show Posts