**** Elections thread *****

[OngBonga]

He was, like you, an anarchist. But his set of rules weren't anything like yours.

Well, if he even has rules, then he, like me, isn't a true anarchist. I'm in favour of law and order, at least where the law is not oppressing freedoms like inhaling certain gasses. I'm in favour of government where its role is to provide a living environment in which humans can thrive safely. I just prefer the concept of anarchy to the corrupt system that we currently exist in. This is not thriving.

[OngBonga]

But wait, why should they need >50% when there's more than two options? If you give people a choice from among ten options and get them to vote, do you only accept their decision if more than half of them agreed on it? Or would you take the choice with the most votes, and if so, how is that not democratic?

Having rounds of voting to ensure an eventual majority sounds appealing, but to be honest I haven't really thought it through a great deal. We're certainly in need of electoral reform to create a more democratic system.

[OngBonga]

What are you on about? Being high is terrible for your driving.

Have you tried driving under the influence of weed? Sure, if you've just hit a bong, bad idea. Give it ten minutes, fine. And having a toke on a spliff will affect your judgement somewhere in the region of fuck all, assuming you're used to smoking weed and not drunk, of course.

Furthermore, my friend had a driving lesson today, and she had an espresso just before to calm her nerves. She was on edge and really didn't like being in control of the car until the coffee had subsided somewhat.

Ban coffee driving, right?

[OngBonga]

If you go back and read what Keith said, it was implied that marijuana was not a victimless crime because it impairs people's driving.

But it's not selling the drug that causes the victims, it's the people using it irresponsibly. If you want to argue marijuana should be illegal because someone could get hurt by using it irresponsibly, logically you'd have to also ban not just alcohol, but pretty much everything from power tools to food processors to cars for the same reason.

Ergo, whether or not marijuana is victimless or victimfull (resulting in victims) by such a categorisation is irrelevant, since such a categorisation, if applied across the board, would be absurd as a means of determining law.

Conversely, if you use a more reasonable standard of victimfull that requires an action that causes direct harm to another, such as rape or murder, marijuana would not fall into that category and thus would be considered a victimless crime.

Holy fuck, reason.

Careful poop, you'll wear out your welcome if you keep this up.

[OngBonga]

whats surprised me is that there's been no comments directed at the second part regarding supplying heroin because there's a demand , or keeping sex slaves to satisfy the demand for sex

Ok well if you want to talk about supply and demand, yeah well as long as noone is getting hurt against their will, I really don't give a fuck about heroin or the sex trade. It exists and is not going away, so it should be legal and regulated to ensure safety for all who indulge in these kind of things.

*edit - I read sex trade and not sex slave... obviously sex slavery is fucking awful, I have no idea how this compares to the growing of weed.

keith you live in another world to me.

[OngBonga]

I don't know of any better system of determining government. I do, however, know of a better system at determining the makeup of society: less/no government.

No government?

Such a system has a name.

[OngBonga]

I'm bored of catching up. This is like a game of fucking werewolf.

lynch keith obviously

[MadMojoMonkey]

Ban coffee driving, right?

Starbucks drive through killed my dog.

Damn yuppies and their rock music.

[OngBonga]

Keith, I'm curious... which do you think is more immoral? Growing weed, or living off benefits?

[MadMojoMonkey]

A 100 on an essay can make my day and a 92 will have me agitated for a while and questioning the Professor's understanding of how to teach/grade.

If this is true, then why are you paying for it?

I mean, if everything you write on the subject is worth 100%, then why do you need to take the class?
Shouldn't / Couldn't you be teaching that class?

[wufwugy]

No government?

Such a system has a name.

I try to make a distinction between a popular consideration of anarchy in a lack of rules and anarcho-capitalism, where rules exist just not created by initiated-violence-monopolies.

[wufwugy]

If this is true, then why are you paying for it?

I mean, if everything you write on the subject is worth 100%, then why do you need to take the class?
Shouldn't / Couldn't you be teaching that class?

I know, right?

Perhaps a way to explain it is that some incentives in the university are distorted. An example is how so many students are not there to learn but there to get an official piece of paper and to put a desired GPA value on the resume.

If you'll indulge me for a minute, here's more or less what has happened to the system: as the government began subsidizing college more and more, the demand for degrees has been increasing and the supply of graduates has been increasing. These have increased to the point that white-collar employers have the incentive to discard resumes void of a bachelor's degree, which puts even more upward pressure on the demand for college degrees. I am in this spot. I am not necessarily college material (even though I do well) and I would prefer to not be in college, but my incentive to get a degree is high enough because that opens doors to so many jobs that once were open to those who didn't have degrees. Government subsidization has turned the university into "13th-16th grade". Just like how kids in high school don't necessarily want to be there or learn, college students are converging onto the same territory.

This subsidization has caused a dilution of standards. The stories older professors tell of their exams show that the exams today are meager in comparison. There is an irony in that faculty tend toward favoring the very subsidization that is turning the university into the very things the faculty is not proud of: reduced diligence in students, lowered syllabus standards, increased control by administration, and overall lots of graduates that are ill-prepared for the job market and often even the next class in a series.


Tangent aside, to try to answer your question, because I live in a construct that incentivizes me to get a diploma and a favorable GPA, that's more or less what I'm paying for. I recognize that this is a totally screwed up system. But beyond that, my personal feelings towards my GPA is because honestly my education is secondary to my GPA. I'd rather be working instead, developing the industry-specific skills more efficiently. Every friend I have with a bachelor's degree does not credit what they learned in college with teaching them much of what they do now for work (even though they're working in their major's field). I hope that my experience will end up differently, but I know I shouldn't necessarily expect it to.

On top of that, if it is true that the intention of a college degree is to demonstrate education and skills, GPA is a poor metric. As economist Bryan Caplan has put it, the university doesn't measure talent, skill, or education so much as it measures conformity. This is at least in part due to the GPA creating a dynamic where students don't learn as much as they should. If the institution was truly about displaying education of its graduates, it would make the exams repeatable and graded pass/fail. This would allow the exams to be much harder (like the exams given by private organizations) and it would designate that more or less all graduates understand the material. This is getting into a different topic, though, so I'll stop.

I'll just end on this: I've learned some stuff outside of school and I've noticed that the learning process is nothing like studying for an exam then taking the exam and moving past it to the next exam. When people learn things outside the university system, there's trial and error and they don't move on until they get it right and the final result replaces the antecedents. GPA is like saying "this student learned only this much of the material and then we moved to other material." It should not be that way. It should be "this student learned all the material required to move on." It looks like I'm about to get back into the weeds I said I would avoid; it's basically my version of what I think the education system would look like if it was totally private instead of the subsidized pseudo-daycare it is now. That's for another day, I guess.

[wufwugy]

The short answer to your question is that when a student gets a grade that reflects not learning some of the material, it doesn't lead to learning the material. Learning the material should be the priority in the university. Students would be so much better off if they were not allowed to move past, say, univariate calculus until they get what is equivalent to maybe 75% or above of a very difficult, repeatable exam.

I've finished so many classes thinking so much was left on the table because of the teaching/grading structure. A student doesn't know what he does wrong until he does it wrong. If I don't do well on my final but still pass the class, what is that helping? The system needs to be structured so that graduates reflect a knowledge/skill base instead of the way it is now, with vast variance.

Of course this gets back to the Bryan Caplan thing: universities on a subliminal level are truly about demonstrating conformity, work ethic, and natural ability. Everybody says it's about learning the material, but the truly important variable that GPA shows is work ethic.

[wufwugy]

Feel free to discard whatever you want about what I say. Because, honestly, if the ethos around the university was that it's about work ethic, I wouldn't contest it as much as I do. That's a very valid thing for something to be about. But the ethos is education and development of knowledge and skills. The system does not engender students who learn those knowledge and skills as well as it could. But it does indeed reflect a type of work ethic.

[wufwugy]

A silver lining of the things I've said is that I want to learn the material and I dislike not getting 100% on anything because I know that I can't get that back by learning the material the way that works normally in life. If getting a sub-optimal grade allowed me to do what it takes to improve it to an optimal grade, I'd be happy with that. I understand that it doesn't work that way, and I think it's because of how the system itself is organized.

Maybe that explains where my over irritation from a grade I consider bad comes from.

[boost]

Damn this thread moves fast-- so kinda skimming and grunching and whatnot..

Why all the hate against gamers?

This came up in a meeting the other day. Some of the TAs (grad students) are looking for ways to punish their undergrad students who are only interesting in accomplishing the bare minimum to receive full credit.
A) Our role as graders is not punishment, it's feedback.
B) What is even wrong with learning the actual requirements and meeting them efficiently?

The notion that if you're not overachieving, you're somehow disrespecting your fellows is absurd.

It reminds me of being an ambitious young carpenter who wastes time sanding the inside of a wall. No one is ever going to see or touch that surface once I seal the wall, so what advantage is gained by sanding it?

I see a lot of students sanding the inside of a wall, is all I'm saying, and it's just them making busywork for no advantage.

***
The minimum standard is still the standard. Gaming to meet the minimum is simply a life-scale optimization.
What's the problem with that?

Not to jump down your throat, but I've been running into this a lot lately, in my own discussions and discussions I've observed between others in print or otherwise. The best name I could give it is unintentional strawmanning. My point was that the system wuf suggested seemed likely to be gamed en masse in a way that is antithetical to the success and intended goals of said system. Instead of interacting with my point, you chose to take the opportunity to talk about a personal gripe-- one which I actually happen to share with you 100%, but which was relayed by you in a way that obfuscated my meaning if one weren't to catch the strawman. Again, I don't think this was intentional at all, and I'm not trying to be overly critical-- I don't think you intended to do what I'm pretty certain I'm accurately describing you to have done, but having done it, I'm not sure how to continue without pointing it out.

Wouldn't you need a massive bureaucracy to enact your system too?



I'm guessing by 'net' he means the people who pay more tax than the average amount paid by a taxpayer? However it's calculated it would amount to giving only the wealthy people the vote, and so seems not so good in principle.

No, not relative to the system I'm contrasting it with. Actually, potentially, it would need almost no bureaucracy. The purchase of votes could act as the only tax. I'd have to think about it more to really reject it, but on it's face I am not a fan of this system-- remember prefaced with "if we're going down that road."

[boost]

Oh and for the grunch. It seems like there are some fundamental misunderstandings of what a democracy is ITT.

I know the word is thrown around a lot, and it is almost always used in a positive light, but, if you would, reflect on the fact that it is almost always a modified democracy being spoken about. The prime examples being Parliamentary Democracy and Democratic Republic. I know that "one man, one vote" sounds great. It sounds fair. But you're either deluded or being dishonest if you can't see the inherent drawbacks in a true democracy, especially as the voting population increases in size and homogeneity decreases.

He's a fun thought experiment: List all the pros of an altruistic dictator and all the negatives of a direct democracy.

[JKDS]

A silver lining of the things I've said is that I want to learn the material and I dislike not getting 100% on anything because I know that I can't get that back by learning the material the way that works normally in life. If getting a sub-optimal grade allowed me to do what it takes to improve it to an optimal grade, I'd be happy with that. I understand that it doesn't work that way, and I think it's because of how the system itself is organized.

Maybe that explains where my over irritation from a grade I consider bad comes from.

Ain't no second chances in life. Gotta do it right the first time.

[Savy]

Repeatable tests is something they do, here's why it doesn't happen very often.

Person A goes into the test with no revision, fails. Revises everything that came up on the test resits the test & gets ~100%. Amount of knowledge gained can be practically zero. Then you have the fact that the logistics of it aren't even close to viable.

[MadMojoMonkey]

GPA is definitely a flawed system, but nobody's changing it any time soon, so gotta deal with it.

It's not like it's rigid. We bend the rules all the time. Curve grades and drop lowest, extra credit...


Also, the undergraduate education is far more broad than deep. It's important to keep in mind that everything you're being told is basically the groundwork for what you want to be doing. Knowing those tools exist is amazing knowledge. Knowing that you at least kinda understood it before and now that it means something to you, you can def. get it... that's the point.

Plus the electives... 'cause bringing your interests to the table is an asset.


As for conformity... If you say F != ma, then you gonna fail. IDK about most of social stuff, though.... so prob doing the straw man dance, again.

[Poopadoop]

Ban coffee driving, right?

I agree it's a ridiculous argument if you take it to its logical conclusion.

On another note, I don't think your friend should have a license if she uses an expresso to calm her down. What does she take to help her wake up in the morning, ketamine?

[OngBonga]

I think she was tired after work. Maybe "calm her nerves" was the wrong phrase, but she certainly didn't like it and probably won't drink espresso before driving again!

*edit - I noted your spelling of espresso (expresso) and googled it in case I was being stupid, but you're the one spelling it wrong.

Suck it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Def no x in espresso, but it hardly matters given how widespread the mispronunciation of the word has become.

I doubt you had trouble parsing his meaning for even a second.

The communication was done w/o misunderstanding, and yet you feel compelled to tell him he's done a poor job communicating.

Don't be a (d^3/dt^3)x.

[OngBonga]

I doubt you had trouble parsing his meaning for even a second.

My first thought was "am I wrong", so obviously I did know what he meant!

I only picked him up on it because I checked and was proven right, so I gloat.

[JKDS]

Marijuana, alcohol, and other substances that impair your ability to drive are illegal to use whike driving because they impair your ability to drive.

Even if MJ was legalized, using it while driving won't be permitted due to its effect on the body.

Coffee doesn't impair your ability to drive.

But the bigger issue with marijuana is this: since legalization in Colorado and elsewhere, more children have been hospitalized after MJ use. More students dropped out of high school. In addition, we are slowly learning that the super MJ that is currently bring produced does have adverse health effects. Contrary to popular belief, it appears that the stronger strains can be addictive as well.

[boost]

Def no x in espresso, but it hardly matters given how widespread the mispronunciation of the word has become.

I doubt you had trouble parsing his meaning for even a second.

The communication was done w/o misunderstanding, and yet you feel compelled to tell him he's done a poor job communicating.

Don't be a (d^3/dt^3)x.

This is another interesting thing I run into from both sides in discussion. Sometimes people are Onging and are seeking to discredit via unrelated grammar and syntax critiques-- but other times people use your defence when definitions really are important. For example, I was discussing the whole "should terrorist get due process" thing with a friend, and they insisted on referring to the manner in which Guantanamo detainees ended up in custody as "kidnapping." I was reasonably sure we agreed on the facts of how they came to be detained, but I thought it was prudent to harp on the use of "kidnapping" to describe the events, because in cases like this words do matter. "Kidnap" is a adequate verbiage here, but its mere adequacy and the choice to not use a better descriptor of the events is intentionally being taken advantage of to colour the dialogue.

All that is to say, it's really crazy how many tricks, subtle and not can be employed in communication.

[boost]

Marijuana, alcohol, and other substances that impair your ability to drive are illegal to use whike driving because they impair your ability to drive.

Even if MJ was legalized, using it while driving won't be permitted due to its effect on the body.

Coffee doesn't impair your ability to drive.

But the bigger issue with marijuana is this: since legalization in Colorado and elsewhere, more children have been hospitalized after MJ use. More students dropped out of high school. In addition, we are slowly learning that the super MJ that is currently bring produced does have adverse health effects. Contrary to popular belief, it appears that the stronger strains can be addictive as well.

I assume you are not for prohibition of alcohol. In light of your insistence that marijuana remain a controlled substance, can you explain how you can support the legal status of alcohol?

Further, all the negatives you've listed, have you properly weighed them? On balance, you're saying that legalization of weed is a net harm in CO? No war on drugs? Huge boon for taxes? Decreased rates of DUIs? Yeah, I'll take a few more HS dropouts and some potheads that are mildly addicted to weed.

[Poopadoop]

My first thought was "am I wrong", so obviously I did know what he meant!

I only picked him up on it because I checked and was proven right, so I gloat.

It's all good. I made fun of your friend, and you got yours back.

I apologise if my joke actually pissed you off irl, that wasn't my intention. You're a good guy Mr. Ong.

[MadMojoMonkey]

But the bigger issue with marijuana is this: since legalization in Colorado and elsewhere, more children have been hospitalized after MJ use. More students dropped out of high school. In addition, we are slowly learning that the super MJ that is currently bring produced does have adverse health effects. Contrary to popular belief, it appears that the stronger strains can be addictive as well.

Wait... they were taken to the hospital by someone who didn't understand that there was no actual health risk, or they were taken to the hospital and the health workers affirmed that there was an actual reason for them to be in a hospital?

I've never heard of anyone needing medical attention because of MJ. Geez, in 2000, I was at Hempfest in Seattle and ate a, let's say special, brownie that seriously kicked my tail. I was nauseated and fatigued for about an hour or more (hard to tell time at a day fair). After that, I was fine. I drank plenty of water and enjoyed the shops and music of the festival. No hospitalization required. Just a good lay down and some long thoughts on the topics of mistake and regret.

Or do you mean... someone under the influence of MJ did something which injured another person, e.g. a driving accident.


***
As to the rest, correlation is not causation. The way you've presented it doesn't demonstrate that these are dependent variables.

***
People don't want to feel like I did at that day fair. They consume less of the modern stuff than the plate-fulls that were consumed in the 70's.

If it's addictive, then that's important news. I'm not sure it's a lynchpin argument to the legalization issue, though. AA, and whatnot. So the fact that it's addictive is not enough by itself to make it illegal.

[OngBonga]

Coffee doesn't impair your ability to drive.

Of course it can. It is a drug, it has effects, it can increase the heart rate, cause headache, nervousness, restlessness, stomach upset, nausea and vomiting. A single cup of coffee is likely to do very little, just as half a pint of guinness, or a few tokes on a spliff, have negligible effects on a person's ability to function. But many cups of coffee will indeed impair your ability to drive, if by impair we mean "reduce optimal performance".

But the bigger issue with marijuana is this: since legalization in Colorado and elsewhere, more children have been hospitalized after MJ use. More students dropped out of high school. In addition, we are slowly learning that the super MJ that is currently bring produced does have adverse health effects. Contrary to popular belief, it appears that the stronger strains can be addictive as well.

I don't think you'll find many people who smoke weed who think it doesn't have adverse health effects. The argument that most stoners make is that the effects are not as adverse as tobacco and alcohol. Furthermore, there are medical benefits which somewhat outweigh the adverse effects. The same can't be said of alcohol and baccy.

More kids have been hospitalised? Who the fuck gets hospitalised through smoking weed? What you're probably seeing there is more fucking idiots overreacting when they see a kid having a whitey. I do not know a single person who has ever had any kind of medical emergency through smoking weed. I've seen a few people turn white and go very quiet. The general reaction to someone having a whitey is to take the piss out of them. Worst that will happen is they'll throw up.

People are dropping out of college? Big fucking deal. That's hardly a reason to stop people smoking weed. Just means it's easier for those who don't drop out to get well paid jobs, since there are fewer graduates to challenge their qualifications.

Weed is addictive, yes. But it's not a physical addiction like heroin, it's largely psychological. I don't get twitchy, or moody, when I'm not stoned. It's addictive because it's nice, like tea is addictive, or chocolate. Dopamine is a powerful thing.

[Poopadoop]

You make some good points here, Wuf, and mostly I agree. There's a couple of things I'd like to add, however.

Because I live in a construct that incentivizes me to get a diploma and a favorable GPA, that's more or less what I'm paying for. I recognize that this is a totally screwed up system. But beyond that, my personal feelings towards my GPA is because honestly my education is secondary to my GPA. I'd rather be working instead, developing the industry-specific skills more efficiently. Every friend I have with a bachelor's degree does not credit what they learned in college with teaching them much of what they do now for work (even though they're working in their major's field). I hope that my experience will end up differently, but I know I shouldn't necessarily expect it to.

Although a degree doesn't necessarily directly contribute knowledge related to a specific job, that's at least partly because of diversity in the job market. If you think of all the things a group of students with a BSc. in subject X could go on to do, it would be impossible to impart all of them with the practical skills they'll need without having a separate course for each job. And if you do that, it's a vocational school you're running, not a university.

What the degree does do is teach the skills of learning, such as acquiring and retaining information, evaluating different ideas, critical analysis, etc.. This is pretty much universally applicable in any job that requires some degree of intelligent thought. The reason employers favor someone with a degree over someone without a degree is that the former person has shown that they've developed these skills at least well enough to finish their degree, and certainly more than they would have had by spending four years flipping burgers. We're not directly teaching people how to be a banker or a clerk, we're teaching them how to use their heads and think, so they can be a better banker or clerk (or whatever).

On top of that, if it is true that the intention of a college degree is to demonstrate education and skills, GPA is a poor metric. As economist Bryan Caplan has put it, the university doesn't measure talent, skill, or education so much as it measures conformity. This is at least in part due to the GPA creating a dynamic where students don't learn as much as they should.

I haven't read Kaplan but he may be exaggerating to make a point. A university certainly does evaluate it's students based on talent, education and skill. I know a lot of students who work very hard in uni and don't get top mark - not everyone has an IQ > 120. I also know students who are very bright but don't put in the effort - they also don't get a top mark because they haven't put in the effort required to get an education.

Before I comment further on this, I want to be clear on what Kaplan means by 'conformity', cause i can think of several different applications of that word. Can you elaborate here?

[OngBonga]

It's all good. I made fun of your friend, and you got yours back.

I apologise if my joke actually pissed you off irl, that wasn't my intention. You're a good guy Mr. Ong.

Of course it didn't piss me off, it made me laugh because the friend in question doesn't even like smoking spliffs these days.

[Poopadoop]

Not to jump down your throat, but I've been running into this a lot lately, in my own discussions and discussions I've observed between others in print or otherwise. The best name I could give it is unintentional strawmanning.

To be fair to MMM, I don't think he was strawmanning so much as just going off on a tangent. Although he did start out with something about 'hating on gamers' so it may have looked like an argument against yours, it wasn't. Or if it was it was shit. But I don't think it was.

[OngBonga]

Honestly, you'll do well to piss me off by typing words on a screen. I think people on this site have pissed me off a handful of times. I remember at least once getting legit pissy with spoon, and I probably snapped at bikes and a few of the twats that liked to lick his virtual dick. But it's rare, even more so as I get older and give less of a shit what people think.

[OngBonga]

I don't even think keith has made me angry before. He tries, but fails because he has the problem that I actually like his outspoken nature, even if he thinks I'm a drug addled waster.

[Poopadoop]

To add to the whole drug debate, I'm not so much in favor of legalising marijuana as against the logic that it's somehow categorically worse than alcohol. That said, if having alcohol as a legal drug is a mistake, that doesn't mean we should make another mistake by legalizing marijuana. Either both or neither should be legal.

There's obviously also a slippery slope argument that can be made here that says if we start legalising things, then we'll end up legalising a lot of stuff that is patently dangerous and which I think most would agree shouldn't be legal.

[Poopadoop]

Honestly, you'll do well to piss me off by typing words on a screen. I think people on this site have pissed me off a handful of times. I remember at least once getting legit pissy with spoon, and I probably snapped at bikes and a few of the twats that liked to lick his virtual dick. But it's rare, even more so as I get older and give less of a shit what people think.

Gotcha. If I want to piss you I'll have to really put in some effort. I've made a note.

[OngBonga]

To add to the whole drug debate, I'm not so much in favor of legalising marijuana as against the logic that it's somehow categorically worse than alcohol. That said, if having alcohol as a legal drug is a mistake, that doesn't mean we should make another mistake by legalizing marijuana. Either both or neither should be legal.

There's obviously also a slippery slope argument that can be made here that says if we start legalising things, then we'll end up legalising a lot of stuff that is patently dangerous and which I think most would agree shouldn't be legal.

The problem with drugs being illegal is that it doesn't stop people taking them. It's also an oppression of freedom, whether you acknowledge it or not. I can smoke actual grass, because it's ridiculous to have a law in place that tells me I can't. Why is it ok to smoke grass and not weed?

The same can be said of cocaine. I could go an get some washing powder out of the cupboard, and snort it. I could tell the world I did it, because there's no law against it. Of course, it's stupid, but I have the freedom to do it if I want. Why can't I put cocaine up my nose? It's only hurting me. And the idea that it supports a drug economy... well that's good, because that's jobs for otherwise poor people in Colombia. They might be exploited to fuck, but so are our dairy farmers.

Don't get me wrong. When it comes to the manufacture and distribution of dangerous drugs, it should be illegal without a license. Just like you need a license to make vodka. That shit is dangerous as hell if it's made by amateurs.

I'm in favour of legalisation and regulation of all drugs. That would ultimately destroy the black market, and shift the massive economic benefits of the trade to the state. Prohibition only serves to line the pockets of criminals, and allows low quality shit that is even more dangerous than it should be to circulate.

[MadMojoMonkey]

To add to the whole drug debate, I'm not so much in favor of legalising marijuana as against the logic that it's somehow categorically worse than alcohol. That said, if having alcohol as a legal drug is a mistake, that doesn't mean we should make another mistake by legalizing marijuana. Either both or neither should be legal.

There's obviously also a slippery slope argument that can be made here that says if we start legalising things, then we'll end up legalising a lot of stuff that is patently dangerous and which I think most would agree shouldn't be legal.

Driving a car is patently dangerous.
Coal power plants are patently dangerous.
Chemistry experiments are patently dangerous.
Survivalist camping is patently dangerous.
UFC is patently dangerous.

Seems like, culturally, we don't really care about that danger on a legal level.

[Poopadoop]

Driving a car is patently dangerous.
Coal power plants are patently dangerous.
Chemistry experiments are patently dangerous.
Survivalist camping is patently dangerous.
UFC is patently dangerous.

Seems like, culturally, we don't really care about that danger on a legal level.

I think we do. We assess things in terms of risk/benefits. Driving a car involves a risk but it's such an efficient way to get from point A to point B that people are generally willing to accept the risk. Coal plants involve risks but we live with it (for now) because it's a cheap source of energy. Taking pcp has a risk, but what is the benefit - someone is free to get wrecked out of their mind?

[Poopadoop]

btw, the slippery slope argument is bullshit (as s.s. arguments are in general), since it's up to us how far we want to take things. I just mentioned it cause that's the kind of shit people tend to say when you start talking about legalising drugs.

[Savy]

btw, the slippery slope argument is bullshit (as s.s. arguments are in general), since it's up to us how far we want to take things. I just mentioned it cause that's the kind of shit people tend to say when you start talking about legalising drugs.

I'd take it all the way. Legalise it all.

Whilst people often talk about the negatives of possibly making something legal (mostly made up stuff) it's probably more important to look at the benefits of it being illegal. What benefits does making drugs illegal have? These are all very measurable and happening currently. The truth is it doesn't really stop people taking drugs, it massively increases the amount of people in jail for drugs/drug related activities. It makes it harder for people to get the help to stop doing drugs, has a terrible stigma attached. Doesn't really help save lives because there are huge numbers of drug related deaths (be it through drugs themselves or violence relating to drugs).

That isn't to say that drugs are a good thing. Legalisation isn't an endorsement for use.

Is smoking weed every day going to be a good thing for your life? Very likely not. That's not my choice to make for people though.

You did? I got my figures from wikipedia.

You got there eventually. I just found it funny I'd already given you the figures then you spent like 4 posts fumbling round with guesstimates.

[Savy]

To add to my above post I'm sure there might be exceptions where certain drugs being illegal is a good thing & my legalise it all is a slightly biased world view opinion of mine. That doesn't mean we aren't getting it vastly wrong currently.

This coming from someone who passed a drug & alcohol test today.

[OngBonga]

You got there eventually. I just found it funny I'd already given you the figures then you spent like 4 posts fumbling round with guesstimates.

Glad I didn't annoy you by making it obvious that I skimmed over your post.

[OngBonga]

Taking pcp has a risk, but what is the benefit - someone is free to get wrecked out of their mind?

The benefit to taking it is certainly questionable. That isn't the issue. There are benefits to legalising and regulating it.

Let's talk about ecstacy instead, since PCP is not really in common use. Most of the pills on the street are not MDMA, but that's what people want. When it's something else, people are not aware of the actual risks they are taking. They are assuming the risks of taking MDMA, but that's not what they're taking. So this creates a more dangerous environment than if they were manufactured and regulated by legal means.

This applies across the board with all drugs. Most street cocaine is cut with glucose or whatever else the seller wants to bulk it up with. In some cases, the bulking agent is more dangerous than the cocaine itself. This is what prohibition does.

[Poopadoop]

The benefit to taking it is certainly questionable. That isn't the issue. There are benefits to legalising and regulating it.

Let's talk about ecstacy instead, since PCP is not really in common use. Most of the pills on the street are not MDMA, but that's what people want. When it's something else, people are not aware of the actual risks they are taking. They are assuming the risks of taking MDMA, but that's not what they're taking. So this creates a more dangerous environment than if they were manufactured and regulated by legal means.

This applies across the board with all drugs. Most street cocaine is cut with glucose or whatever else the seller wants to bulk it up with. In some cases, the bulking agent is more dangerous than the cocaine itself. This is what prohibition does.

Agree with all this in terms of legalisation/regulation being a good thing, but not sure it can comfortably be applied across the board.

E.g., If something like pcp were made legal and you could buy it at the corner store, it would probably be used more. Making a few bucks in taxes or keeping the shit-grade pcp off the market isn't really good enough imo. Just the condition of being illegal and making it harder to find is enough to make some people avoid a drug. And for certain drugs, that is probably a good thing.

[OngBonga]

I dunno, I mean with leaglisation and regulation comes greater education. Anyone who understands the nature of PCP is likely to be put off, while the kind of people who ignore such warnings are the kind of people who will take it regardless. It's also necessary to stress that there's possibly still a place for responsible recreational use of PCP. I have no idea to be honest because it's not a drug I've ever come into contact with, either personally or in my social circle. I dunno if it's the kind of thing one can do in moderation. But if someone really wants to take it, well it should be provided for by a responsible commercial enterprise for recreational use, or a medical expert as a prescription in the case of addiction, not by some underworld unregulated wannabe chemist.

[Poopadoop]

Ya I get your point. But what i was getting at was more along the lines of this.

Personally I wouldn't try lots of drugs because I'm old and the days of experimenting with drugs are behind me. But, if some young person wants to get some serious hard core drug like pcp or ketamine or whatever just to try it for kicks, he could probably find it but it isn't like it would be easy. Also he might be scared first of all of who he was buying it from ripping him off (probably rightly), somewhat less scared of getting caught, and least of all scared of harming himself.

If you remove all those disincentives by making it legal, the fear of self-harm might not be enough to keep him from trying it, 'cause he's young and thinks he's immortal.

I'm just bullshitting here obv., but I think there's something to what I'm saying too.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Taking pcp has a risk, but what is the benefit - someone is free to get wrecked out of their mind?

Yes. It is their mind upon which they experiment.

Are you implying that is not a perceived benefit to the person taking the PCP?
That the subjective, personal perception of benefit is irrelevant?
Or that the person taking PCP's perception of benefit is beneath you?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Just the condition of being illegal and making it harder to find is enough to make some people avoid a drug. And for certain drugs, that is probably a good thing.

Fat people eat too much cheese.

Being fat is not a good thing.

Making cheese illegal would make it harder for people to be fat.

***
Why the big-brother attitude where you need to prevent adults from making their own mistakes and learning from their own decisions?

Why the assumption that anyone who is taking drugs is a waste on society?

Why the assumption that someone who is taking drugs would NOT be a waste on society if they weren't taking drugs?

[Poopadoop]

Yes. It is their mind upon which they experiment.

Are you implying that is not a perceived benefit to the person taking the PCP?
That the subjective, personal perception of benefit is irrelevant?
Or that the person taking PCP's perception of benefit is beneath you?

None of which challenges the real point of my argument, which was that you were wrong in saying

Seems like, culturally, we don't really care about that danger on a legal level.

[Poopadoop]

Fat people eat too much cheese.

Being fat is not a good thing.

Making cheese illegal would make it harder for people to be fat.

***
Why the big-brother attitude where you need to prevent adults from making their own mistakes and learning from their own decisions?

Why the assumption that anyone who is taking drugs is a waste on society?

Why the assumption that someone who is taking drugs would NOT be a waste on society if they weren't taking drugs?

Why the assumption that everything I say has some implicit assumption? I may have implied the first of the three things you mentioned, but I didn't come anywhere near implying the other two.

Regarding the big brother thing, yes we do sometimes need to prevent adults from doing stupid shit for their own good. Not everyone is a sensible person.

[MadMojoMonkey]

None of which challenges the real point of my argument, which was that you were wrong in saying

I have not been shown that I was wrong. I have only been shown that I misperceived your question about the benefit of PCP use.

I answered your question about benefit of PCP and showed that mind-out-wrecking is perceived as benefit to the user.
IDK why you think this is not relevant and I'm curious as to why.

I'm not sure if it's the same definition of benefit that you were using.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I may have implied the first of the three things you mentioned, but I didn't come anywhere near implying the other two.

Really?

Really, really?

-.-

Really, really, really?!

...

*sigh*
OK
My bad.

Regarding the big brother thing, yes we do sometimes need to prevent adults from doing stupid shit for their own good. Not everyone is a sensible person.

Ah.

This is where we have polar opposition in our opinions of the purpose of law.


People making their own mistakes is the essence of freedom. Any laws which inhibit a person from any activity which only directly affects the person in question is amoral, IMO. It is everyone's right to be a self-destructive tool.


EDIT: Is it even remotely viable to legally mandate sensibleness?!

[Poopadoop]

I have not been shown that I was wrong. I have only been shown that I misperceived your question about the benefit of PCP use.

I answered your question about benefit of PCP and showed that mind-out-wrecking is perceived as benefit to the user.
IDK why you think this is not relevant and I'm curious as to why.

I'm not sure if it's the same definition of benefit that you were using.

First, I didn't have a question about the benefits of PCP use. I said you were wrong about culture not caring about things being patently dangerous, and gave several examples, of which PCP was only one.

Second, I think it's not relevant because it wasn't fundamentally important to the validity of my argument. In other words, if you remove the PCP example, like so:

"We assess things in terms of risk/benefits. Driving a car involves a risk but it's such an efficient way to get from point A to point B that people are generally willing to accept the risk. Coal plants involve risks but we live with it (for now) because it's a cheap source of energy. "

then it's still true that you were wrong in saying:

ISeems like, culturally, we don't really care about that danger on a legal level.

If you want to change this into an argument about the relative benefits of PCP instead and whether it should be legal or not, then that's a different argument.

[Poopadoop]

Really?

Really, really?

-.-

Really, really, really?!

...

*sigh*
OK
My bad.

Well I can't help what people read into what I said. But I don't think I said anything at all along those lines.

People making their own mistakes is the essence of freedom. Any laws which inhibit a person from any activity which only directly affects the person in question is amoral, IMO. It is everyone's right to be a self-destructive tool.

It's a matter of opinion and not fact, I agree.

EDIT: Is it even remotely viable to legally mandate sensibleness?!

Seat belts, motorcycle helmets, safety goggles ....etc.

[Keith]

catching up with a couple of Ongs points , growing and selling weed is definitely worse than living off benefits cos its illegal. Also can't understand the conviction that if weed was made legal , that all would be rosy with the world. Sure there would be guaranteed quality and regulated product available for sale, but you'd also see the same illegality as with the tobacco trade with people buying knockoff imported tobacco where no tax has been paid , hence much cheaper but with less regulation to ensure the quality.
Any "entrepreneur" exploiting this market would be incentivised to cut in a bit of heroin/crack /whatever at a very low rate to ensure addiction and continued purchase of their product.

[MadMojoMonkey]

First, I didn't have a question about the benefits of PCP use. I said you were wrong about culture not caring about things being patently dangerous, and gave several examples, of which PCP was only one.

In all your examples, you show that our culture values other things above the perception of danger.
Indeed, that danger is something we are willing to take in mass doses for a perceived benefit. (Coal pollution is far worse danger to the future of the world than any single person's harm.)

PCP was the outlier in that you seemed to say there was no perceived benefit and that's why it's illegal.
To which I questioned why (or what is it about) the personal nature of the benefit makes it different.

Second, I think it's not relevant because it wasn't fundamentally important to the validity of my argument. In other words, if you remove the PCP example, like so:

"We assess things in terms of risk/benefits. Driving a car involves a risk but it's such an efficient way to get from point A to point B that people are generally willing to accept the risk. Coal plants involve risks but we live with it (for now) because it's a cheap source of energy. "

then it's still true that you were wrong in saying:

Then you made my point and tell me I'm wrong in the same breath?

I don't know what you're talking about if you say, "Look at these things which are legal and dangerous." and also say, "You are wrong that society isn't concerned with this kind of danger." That doesn't mesh. Clearly we value other things much more than the threat of danger. I.e. we don't value this kind of danger on a legal level.

If you want to change this into an argument about the relative benefits of PCP instead and whether it should be legal or not, then that's a different argument.

Dude. You are the one who brought up PCP. I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying about it and why.

You brought up the idea that there is no benefit to PCP, and that's why it's illegal. To which I question what you mean by benefit. Surely you acknowledge that the person taking PCP perceives benefit, yet you seem to discard that person's benefit.

How do you justify this?

Is danger a reason we put forth in this society to repeal freedoms? Not exclusively, no. In fact, there are so many examples of dangerous activities which are legal that the whole notion that danger plays a role in the reason for laws is thin at best.

I don't think your argument is sufficient to explain this.

[Poopadoop]

I'm happy to admit the PCP was a bad example. As for the rest, I'm not of the opinion it's worthy of an endless dispute. So let's just say you won that argument too and move on.

[wufwugy]

Ain't no second chances in life. Gotta do it right the first time.

This is ammo for me. Life is full of second chances. Granted, the education system does allow for second chances, just not as robustly as I think it should.

Some of this stuff is illusion on my part. What I mean is along the lines of employers more or less already account for deficiencies in the GPA system, so they tend to think of a 3.5 about as good as a 4.0

[wufwugy]

Repeatable tests is something they do, here's why it doesn't happen very often.

Person A goes into the test with no revision, fails. Revises everything that came up on the test resits the test & gets ~100%. Amount of knowledge gained can be practically zero. Then you have the fact that the logistics of it aren't even close to viable.

It would definitely have to be organized differently.

I didn't get much into it, but I think that it would include a total deconstruction of the university-as-home and class-on-tuition model. Some examples would be that instead of lecturers, there would probably be self-study and tutors; instead of classes (for most topics, some need lecture/lab setting), there would be self-study programs; instead of class-structured exams, they would be more like the bar/actuary/cpa; instead of passing classes to earn degree, there would be passing exams to earn degree.

[MadMojoMonkey]

As for the rest, I'm not of the opinion it's worthy of an endless dispute.

Am I turning this into an argument? Sorry. I don't meant to.

Yeah... endless is dumb.

So let's just say you won that argument too and move on.

I'm not trying to win anything; I'm trying to understand you.

I don't mean to be a jerk, so I'll drop it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What I mean is along the lines of employers more or less already account for deficiencies in the GPA system, so they tend to think of a 3.5 about as good as a 4.0

Grad school admissions care about GPA.

Employers don't care about GPA. Employers care about quality team members.

Some HR people think GPA matters and can make it difficult to get an interview if you put a low GPA on your resume'. So don't put your GPA on your resume' unless it's A) your first job after earning your degree and B) your GPA over a 3.2 ish.

Once you're in the interview, nothing on that sheet of paper which is your resume' matters anymore.

[Poopadoop]

I don't mean to be a jerk, so I'll drop it.

You weren't being a jerk at all, and I hope I wasn't either. I just felt we had our wires completely crossed and it was better to let it go.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You weren't being a jerk at all, and I hope I wasn't either. I just felt we had our wires completely crossed and it was better to let it go.

You're cool. I get the feeling we're going to do this a while until we figure each other out, then we'll be buds.


Kinda like me and wuf. We still dig into each other, but we have so much history that I respect him as being a smart guy who is nearly diametrically opposed to me in world-views.

I don't generally take the attitude that if I disagree with someone I should get mad and assume they're wrong. Not worth it. I hang out with smart people, and they have a consistent world-view. It's just different than mine. That's cool. I'm generally curious about what smart people who disagree with me think.

Still, it's not lost on me that I lack certain social understanding and that I can come off as judgemental when I don't feel judgemental.

[wufwugy]

Before I comment further on this, I want to be clear on what Kaplan means by 'conformity', cause i can think of several different applications of that word. Can you elaborate here?

Caplan is writing a book on education and his points are scattered throughout his blog posts. This is the least wordy thing I can find:

Like most economists, Noah needs to be more sociological. In a cultural vacuum, working four years might be a great signal of work ethic. But no human being lives in a cultural vacuum. We live in societies thick with norms and expectations. And in our society, people with strong work ethics go to college and people with bad work ethics don't.

Disagree? Just picture how your parents would react if you told them, "I'm not going to college. I'm just going to get a job." In our society, your parents definitely wouldn't respond, "That makes sense, because you're such a hard worker." Why not? Because in our society, most hard-workers choose college. If a hard-working kid refuses to copy their behavior, people - including employers - understandably treat him as if he's lazy. Because lazy is how he looks.

Noah overlooks another key trait that education signals: sheer conformity to social norms. In our society, you're supposed to go to college, and you're supposed to finish. If you don't, the labor market sensibly questions your willingness to be a submissive worker bee.

From here: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...nal_sig_1.html

If you're interested in more, he links to relevant stuff.

[wufwugy]

Kinda like me and wuf. We still dig into each other, but we have so much history that I respect him as being a smart guy who is nearly diametrically opposed to me in world-views.

When it comes to things in general, we probably agree a lot. I'm just a boundary pusher. I'm always looking for a way in which a convention could be changed for the better. Like, today I was pondering the evidence/rationale for the idea that feminism has always been at its core anti-female and anti-femininity.

[Savy]

It would definitely have to be organized differently.

I didn't get much into it, but I think that it would include a total deconstruction of the university-as-home and class-on-tuition model. Some examples would be that instead of lecturers, there would probably be self-study and tutors; instead of classes (for most topics, some need lecture/lab setting), there would be self-study programs; instead of class-structured exams, they would be more like the bar/actuary/cpa; instead of passing classes to earn degree, there would be passing exams to earn degree.

The example I was giving was actually from a place that was much more in line with your alternative system than a university/college setting.

[wufwugy]

The example I was giving was actually from a place that was much more in line with your alternative system than a university/college setting.

Poor exam structure.

Private organizations have figured out how to make exams very difficult and repeatable.

[Savy]

Poor exam structure.

Private organizations have figured out how to make exams very difficult and repeatable.

Nah the truth of the matter is what you're talking about is such a logistical nightmare it just won't happen.

[wufwugy]

I don't mean "repeatable" as in that exact exam is repeatable. I mean in that the "univariate calculus" exam is repeatable. The exams would have to organize price, frequency, and questions in such a way that doesn't provide for gaming of the system.

[wufwugy]

Nah the truth of the matter is what you're talking about is such a logistical nightmare it just won't happen.

How is it a nightmare? It would be very easy. Private organizations have already done it.

[Poopadoop]

You're cool. I get the feeling we're going to do this a while until we figure each other out, then we'll be buds.


Kinda like me and wuf. We still dig into each other, but we have so much history that I respect him as being a smart guy who is nearly diametrically opposed to me in world-views.

I don't generally take the attitude that if I disagree with someone I should get mad and assume they're wrong. Not worth it. I hang out with smart people, and they have a consistent world-view. It's just different than mine. That's cool. I'm generally curious about what smart people who disagree with me think.

Still, it's not lost on me that I lack certain social understanding and that I can come off as judgemental when I don't feel judgemental.

Thanks, you're alright too.

It can definitely be hard to read people's mood from words alone. Sometimes people sound pissy when they're just joking around or sound pissy when they're being completely straight. I don't know how many times I got an email and initially thought 'what a cunt' when it fact it was totally ambiguous what their tone was from the words they used, and I was just being paranoid. Other people have told me they have the same problem.

So I don't think it's anything to do with lacking social understanding - it's just that the social information we use to judge mood generally relies more on tone of voice and body language than it does on words.

[Poopadoop]

Noah overlooks another key trait that education signals: sheer conformity to social norms. In our society, you're supposed to go to college, and you're supposed to finish. If you don't, the labor market sensibly questions your willingness to be a submissive worker bee.

I think he's probably right about what he says here. But it isn't clear how he (or you?) gets from that to this:

the university doesn't measure talent, skill, or education so much as it measures conformity.

...unless he/you means that the university degree doesn't signify talent or education so much as it signifies conformity. Which would seem more plausible (but still wrong, or at least overly simplistic). Is that what you meant?

[Poopadoop]

Caplan is writing a book on education and his points are scattered throughout his blog posts. This is the least wordy thing I can find:

Noah overlooks another key trait that education signals: sheer conformity to social norms. In our society, you're supposed to go to college, and you're supposed to finish. If you don't, the labor market sensibly questions your willingness to be a submissive worker bee.

... and this sounds weak to me for two reasons: First, the labor market has a strong incentive to hire people with university degrees that has to do with the advantages i listed earlier, such as acquiring and retaining information, critical thinking skills, etc.. Second, it's not at all clear that people who go to university are more submissive than people who don't. On the contrary. I think that if anything, four years of university generally makes people more likely to think for themselves, and as a consequence, less likely to be the submissive worker bees that Caplan argues the market covets.

And saying people choose university mainly to conform to society's expectations regarding what good workers do also seems a bit contrived. It's analogous to saying sick people go to the doctor to conform to society's expectations about what sick people will do, or that people who go to a bank machine to withdraw cash do so to conform to society's expectations about what a person who needs cash will do. All of these things signal 'conformity' in the sense that it's what people tend to do in a particular situation. That doesn't mean conforming with society's expectations was any part of the motivation for doing these things.

I think people go to university because 1) they can get an education which is a positive thing in and of itself; and 2) because it gives them more options in terms of jobs further down the road due to 1) above. Maybe some of them (or even a lot of them) are only doing it for the second reason, and some of them are probably doing it for different reasons altogether (e.g., to party, to find a mate), but that doesn't mean the education they get is therefore useless.