Raising the minimum wage is probably the most anti-science idea in political economics.
Printable View
Raising the minimum wage is probably the most anti-science idea in political economics.
It was probably a better idea back when electors were chosen by state governments. But really, I don't know. I don't like democracy but I don't have any better ideas of how to determine governments. Probably the way to make democracy great is to limit the vote to net taxpayers. This wouldn't be perfect, but it would provide for much better results.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Looking at it this way doesn't tell much of the story. If the reasoning that the individual vote doesn't matter was correct, it would also be correct to say that voting itself doesn't matter, yet that is clearly not the case. If somebody wants to understand the vote, they can't just do a couple bits of arithmetic and call it a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The causality those things have with influencing the vote is weak.Quote:
How you do you know that? They could have dumped ten billion dollars into ads, hired people to go door to door, used all kinds of tricks, and changed the vote decisively. But not because they influenced one person, because they influenced thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions.
We've mostly been taught that history is about big men, but academia has been coming around to the better explanation that history is about movements and ideas.
I don't think that, but the cool thing is that "does your vote count" is not the question. Nobody's vote counts and yet voting counts. Square that circle.Quote:
But if you think it's because you've got a good chance of making a difference with your one vote, you're just deluded and nothing more.
It would be ironic if this meant Trump couldn't vote in his own election.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't know American history very well but I thought the original principle of the union was to devolve a lot of the power to the individual states, and I assumed the electoral college was one way of doing this. Is that right?
Yes it was. State governments chose US senators and president at that time. Only congresscritters were chosen by popular vote. IIRCQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Trump probably wouldn't, but as it is now, it would mean that a very small percentage of people vote. I forget the numbers exactly, but on average the middle class doesn't even pay tax by net. It's only like the top 2% that pay net taxes on average.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The masses voting is the path to civilization doom. The majority vote to take more and more money from the productive. We've seen the great damage this causes. If I were God and I were to engineer the destruction of the greatest civilization in the universe, I would turn it into a democracy with few limits on voting. People are good at stopping obvious disasters, but the disaster we don't stop is the one we don't see rotting our core.
It's not a circle and it doesn't need squaring. I've already explained why one vote out of a large number of votes means a very small amount. Add a whole lot of very small amounts together and you get a big amount. That doesn't mean any one of those little small amounts is meaningful on its own; only their sum is meaningful.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Here's another way of looking at that might make you happier. If America lasts for a million years, there is a good chance that a POTUS election will be decided by a single vote one or two times. If that happens to be this election and you don't vote, then you'll be kicking yourself because you let the bad guys win. So you should go vote.
We're ultimately talking about two different things. I think that whether or not my vote counts is irrelevant to the question of whether or not voting matters. This may sum up what I'm getting at: my vote doesn't count, but the vote counts, which means my vote counts even when it doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
In 1984, Ronald Reagan lost Minnosota's 10 electoral votes by a mere 4,000 popular votes.
He also lost DC's 3 electoral votes by over 100,000 popular votes.
If not for these occurrences, Reagan would have got 100% of the electoral votes.
Aint that neat?
Bill Clinton also lost Arizona in his first election, but won Arizona in his second by approximately 30,000 popular votes.
The vote does matter. Sure, the electors could decide to rebel and go against the popular vote, but they rarely do.
Ya we are definitely talking about two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
There is no direct connection between my vote for POTUS and how my electors vote. It is ultimately their own personal decision whether or not to act as the majority. Whether or not there is precedent for them to go against this is irrelevant. It's not my vote that counts, and I didn't get any vote on who is representing me in the electoral college. It's not democratic.
It is the case that electors can vote before the election polls are closed. That's not democracy.
I see no point is participating in a farce of democracy.
What more need I say?
Also... did poopadoop just offer to school me on the binomial distribution?
;)
Good one.
I'm sure you don't need it since you're a physicist. But if your argument is that what person X didn't say is completely wrong, that's a pretty thin argument. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Cutting out the electors, but keeping the elector votes, would probably be a fairer system.
I like that we have a defense against a popular Hitler though.
It seems like, if we're going down this road, the system that makes the most sense is a correlation between dollars donated and votes allocated. Having it be binary, as you propose, gets the worst result as you both need a massive beurocracy to determine whether someone is net + or -, and you incentivize the gaming of the system where people gain full citizenship by paying a net $0.01 in taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the top 2% of American earners, yet I think I pay net + in taxes. What am I missing? My paycheck has stuff taken out of it, and I typically get a very small tax return or owe a small amount (because lol@ loaning the government free monies.)
How is the problem with the system not obvious here? Regan lost MN by 4k votes and loses ten seats, but loses DC by 25x more while only losing three seats. MN was a much bigger hit regarding his chances of winning the presidency, even though it was very close indeed.Quote:
In 1984, Ronald Reagan lost Minnosota's 10 electoral votes by a mere 4,000 popular votes.
He also lost DC's 3 electoral votes by over 100,000 popular votes.
If MN split the ten seats based on the popular vote, well we're getting closer to something resembling democracy.
I'm curious why you don't like democracy. I'm no fan of what we call democracy, and it seems worse in the States than it does here in the UK, but at its roots democracy is surely the only civilised way to ensure the people accept the government.Quote:
I don't like democracy but I don't have any better ideas of how to determine governments.
What other options are there? What makes you think that the masses would accept a different system?
Why should my life be governed by other peoples stupid opinions? It should be governed by my stupid ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Good answer, that really explains why democracy is bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Why should anyone else be governed by your stupid opinions?
I can accept no democracy if you want to talk about anarchy, but that is a lack of government, rather than a government without a popular mandate. Where a government exists, well I don't see how it can be considered fair, and thus be respected by the masses, if it's not the result of a common vote.
Why should I abide by law if the lawmakers are placing themselves into a position of power, instead of being put into place by the commoners?
They shouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
For example say you're part of a weird group that thinks wearing shoes is against some imaginary creatures will and that group just happens to be 75% of the population. Should that mean no one can wear shoes? Probably not.
I'm clearly just still angry from when I last walked to the shop on Sunday to find it was closed.
It's hard to think of a better alternative than democracy for keeping the citizenry reasonably happy. When you give the people what they've (collectively) asked for, there's little room for them to dispute the process of selecting a government. That of course assumes a true democracy where all votes contribute equally.
Also, I acknowledge politicians are capable of mispresenting their intentions, so to say people get what they ask for is a bit too simplistic. But generally, you should have a pretty good idea of what kind of things (say) Trump vs. Clinton are likely to do if they get elected.
Anarchy would just be primitive chaos. Sure it might be fun for the first couple weeks until someone decides to stick a bullet in you because they don't like your haircut. There has to be some kind of law and order, we can't just let people run amok.
Why all the hate against gamers?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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?
Wouldn't you need a massive bureaucracy to enact your system too?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I disagree completely. Anarchy would not be fun to start with, that's the period where bullets are getting sprayed around for stupid reasons. But let's say someone does indeed put a bullet in me because I have long hair (more a lack of haircut), well how long is that dude gonna survive in the world he now resides in? Not very long at all. Not only would my friends and family want to deal with him, but also the community as a whole would feel that this person who shot me is a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by poop
Sooner or later, it all settles down, because the dickheads out there realise that the punishment for their actions is now a great deal more severe that it was before. Vigilante justice is feared more than police justice.
But this isn't how democracy works. It's not a case of "let's vote for every single law", because doing so will take a very long time indeed. It's a case of voting in a bunch of people to deal with all that shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by imsavy
If a bunch of weirdos gets into power saying they will ban shoes, well done to them. I'll ignore their stupid law because I'm a stoner who doesn't give a flying fuck about law, my behaviour is based on my own sense of morality.
What I'm doing there is rejecting law, not democracy. I'm not saying these crazy fuckers shouldn't be in power, they got voted in. I'm saying that their laws don't apply to me because I'm an anarchist.
It's the idea that the slackers are somehow devaluing the keeners' hard work. In fact it's the opposite. The slackers are making the keeners look even better by comparison. They should be thanking the slackers, not trying to punish them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The problem with a system of vigiliante justice is that everyone is deciding for themselves what the rules are and what the appropriate punishments are for breaking them. That's why people fear it, because some dick can decide you deserve to pay for something silly. And since he's rightly afraid of what might happen in such a situations, he's going to arm himself more strongly and take refuge in a gang for protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you look at countries where effective government has broken down and anarchy runs rampant they're basically just dens of crime. Colombia in the time of Escobar (and probably to a similar extent today) is one example that springs to mind.
I dunno why I bother with analogies on here they never go well. There are lots of such groups that influence policy much more than people would be comfortable with, even on a much more simple level like old people vote more therefore policies try to appease the old more than others. Then you have the fact that if you give a select group of people power then all that happens is the people with money and power just need to influence those select few.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The idea you can just pick and choose the laws you follow is ridiculous too. Probably wouldn't have the same attitude if they decided to clamp down on weed and starting putting people in jail for long periods of time. Not least because it'd at the very least put a hole in your pocket.
Yup, which is why at first it would be horrible. But, over time, there will be a gernally common consensus of what kind of behaviour is acceptable, and what isn't. I would like to think that, over time, those of high morality would dominate those of low morality, based purely on numbers. I guess that's the key... there will be a battle of dominance between those who are civil, and those who are not. Who wins? I think, and hope, that civility wins.Quote:
The problem with a system of vigiliante justice is that everyone is deciding for themselves what the rules are and what the appropriate punishments are for breaking them.
But what you see here is the beginning of anarchism, before order is restored. What we haven't seen is anarchy allowed to flourish to see if the long term effects are positive. You're also looking at countries which were torn apart by war, hence the collapse in order. If a country like the UK suddenly turned to anarchy, it would be very different.Quote:
If you look at countries where effective government has broken down and anarchy runs rampant they're basically just dens of crime. Colombia in the time of Escobar (and probably to a similar extent today) is one example that springs to mind.
Don't get me wrong, of course I'm aware that I can't be sure that anarchism can work for humans in this day and age. But it's the deafult setting for the entire animal kingdom, and it's not something I would personally have a problem with because I consider myself to be of high morality, and would value community very highly, and protect it at all costs, in such a system. I think I'd be in the majority, and hopefully the dominat, group.
Well the idea that someone can punish me for inhaling smoke is ridiculous. I'm never going to accept ridiculous laws.Quote:
The idea you can just pick and choose the laws you follow is ridiculous too. Probably wouldn't have the same attitude if they decided to clamp down on weed and starting putting people in jail for long periods of time. Not least because it'd at the very least put a hole in your pocket.
If they started jailing people like me for smoking weed, I'd protest along with lots of other people.
Protest all you like mate, the people you voted for* did the law and that's democracy. Like with most things people wouldn't give a fuck if it didn't effect them & with the issue of drugs most people are against it so you'd struggle to get anything done.
*Well more likely didn't vote for as 66.1% of people voted & of that vote the conservatives only got 36.9% meaning that a solid 22.4% of the electorate decided who runs the country.
But it's not like the others weren't given the opportunity to vote, they just couldn't be bothered or realised the futility of it. So the 66 % that did vote get to decide. Totally fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I think you'll find that if students start getting banged up for smoking spliffs, even non-smokers would have something to say about that.Quote:
Protest all you like mate, the people you voted for* did the law and that's democracy. Like with most things people wouldn't give a fuck if it didn't effect them & with the issue of drugs most people are against it so you'd struggle to get anything done.
I really don't think we'll be talking about a bunch of hippy stoners waving "free the herb" placards about. It would no longer be about legalisation, and be much more to do with the state abusing its position to ruin people's lives for their smoking habits.
And yes, you're quick to point out that what we have isn't democracy. It's a sham. But still, if the law says you're not allowed to have anal sex with your wife, does that mean those who ignore the law should be sent to jail? What right has the law got to say what you and your wife can't do behind closed doors? Same with weed. If those we voted in decided to ban tea, I would continue to drink tea.
The Tories got just over 30% of the population voting for them. Even counting those who don't vote, or can't, they're way off majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
In fact those numbers are wrong. I dunno why I was thinking 30%, maybe that's relative to how many CAN vote.
They got 11.3 million votes, the population is around 65 million, so it's around 17%.
Democracy is a beautiful thing.
I think you're being a little optimistic in suggesting that all of the good parts of human nature will somehow rise to the top if we just let everyone do what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's why we have law and order in the first place, to discourage people from following their inner demons, and protect them from others who do so anyways. You can argue a better outcome would happen in anarchy, but it seems unlikely to me.
Basically I think you just want the man off your back so you can do whatever you want without fear of arrest. And that's fine with me as long as all your crimes are victimless. But not everyone is a good, moral person in the sense of respecting the rights of others.
We had 45.3m eligible votes in 2015, last election, and the Tories got 11.3m, which is 25%.
Wow.
So you're for extending the franchise to infants and children? Cause otherwise you need to adjust those numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Anyways, they got a majority (barely). That's the rules, it's not that they have to get > 50% of the population, including people who don't or can't vote. If that were the case we'd never have a government...oh wait, I get what you're on about.
No, we have law and order to control the masses. Stopping people from smoking weed, while allowing the same people to drink alcohol, or even drink paint if they want, is not protecting people. It's control.Quote:
That's why we have law and order in the first place, to discourage people from following their inner demons, and protect them from others who do so anyways. You can argue a better outcome would happen in anarchy, but it seems unlikely to me.
I don't live in fear of arrest. And yes my crimes are victimless, even if I grow and sell cannabis it is victimless because smoking weed does not make you a victim. That's not what the law says, of course, that's me being guided by my own sense of morality. If I sell weed, which I have done in the past, it is to people who want it. Supply and demand. If my customers were victims, so too is my Dad a victim of beer companies.Quote:
Basically I think you just want the man off your back so you can do whatever you want without fear of arrest. And that's fine with me as long as all your crimes are victimless. But not everyone is a good, moral person in the sense of respecting the rights of others.
They didn't get a majority. I think you're not entirely aware of what majority means. If they got 49% of the vote, then they didn't get a majority, because more people didn't vote for them than did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I did. We're up to 25% when counting all eligible voters, and 37% when considering just those who voted.Quote:
Cause otherwise you need to adjust those numbers.
It wasn't torn apart by war. It was a poor country with a corrupt government that allowed people like Escobar to gain tremendous wealth (and thus power). When they tried to contain him, for example by kicking him out of congress or threatening him with extradition to the US (since a Colombian prison was so corrupt a jail sentence there amounted to a holiday), he retaliated in extreme ways, like killing ministers, presidential candidates, and just for good measure, innocent people. The government didn't have the resources to combat him effectively (he was arguably richer than the government) and he only got his comeuppance because the US government got involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
He was, like you, an anarchist. But his set of rules weren't anything like yours.
Ok I get you. They didn't get a majority of the popular vote but they got a majority of seats because of the first past the polls system. I agree, it's not proper.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Just because the system of law has flaws (according to you and me and probably everyone, though there'd be a wide range of views on which parts are flawed) doesn't mean it's some invention whose sole purpose is to make people submit to outside control. Surely you can see it has another motivation?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I didn't mean that in the sense that you're constantly hiding or looking over your shoulder, but rather that your life would be easier if the laws jibed with your own sense of right and wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
really? do you pay for all the electric your canabis enterprise would/does consume or do you follow the lead of the majority of cannabis farms who bypass the meter and steal the electric. The stolen electric cost is passed onto the rest of the electricity companies customers in a higher tariff making us all victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Secondly , when one of your customers gets in his car having smoked some of your product and loses control and crashes, anyone injured also becomes a victim.
where do you draw the line ?weed is illegal and selling it it is illegal.you are happy to flout the law thereQuote:
That's not what the law says, of course, that's me being guided by my own sense of morality. If I sell weed, which I have done in the past, it is to people who want it. Supply and demand. If my customers were victims, so too is my Dad a victim of beer companies.
how about heroin , same thing are you happy to sell that as well?
how about sex slaves , you happy to supply to that demand as well with the slaves just victims of the condom makers
Don't think people who've smoked some weed are worse drivers. It's certainly not anywhere near as bad as being drunk. So by that logic, owning a distillery should be a crime too.
About the power: He could argue that if we had anarchy growers wouldn't have to steal the power cause there'd be no law against growing.
Of course there'd possibly be no power either but that's not the point. ;)
I like how I gave ong the official figures and he proceeded to make up his own ones in his later posts.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It should be proportional representation, it's a simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The ohh no we don't get a government line is just funny, doesn't stop most european countries functioning.
What are you on about? Being high is terrible for your driving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Its just that he kept changing what counted as a voter. First it was the entire population, then it was eligible voters, then people who actually voted.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Then ya, he still ended up with different numbers than you. It is a bit funny.
Really? As bad as being drunk? Not what I heard. Mind you I don't follow the research on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Well it depends on what you mean because you don't really have measurements of how high you are like you do for how drunk you are & there is no regulation on strengths or amounts of weed really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So in the same way a pint or two isn't going to make you into a terrible driver (although still over the legal limit) the same is true of a bit of weed. Having 5-6 pints then driving home is probably about as dangerous as being high and driving, being completely wrecked is probably worse than being really high but both are so far past the point of where you should be in a car it doesn't matter.
My point is the same either way. If you want to say selling marijuana should be illegal 'cause someone could use it irresponsibly and crash their car, then you have to say the same about selling alcohol. It can't be ok to sell one but not the other on those grounds, right?
It was never implied one was victimless just that one is a crime.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
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.
I think you think that I think it's bad, I don't.
See my bit about your own stupid rules governing your own life, if you want to smoke weed have fun. I'm all for people doing all the drugs they want to do. Something democracy directly inhibits.
Ok fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
But this sounds to me at least like you were disagreeing with what I'd just said. So I wanted to clarify what I meant by it and elaborate my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Edit: Either that or you're just arguing for any old reason 'cause you enjoy it. Which is fine as well.
And I can't be arsed having a conversation about the definition of words so thought I'd just leave it, feel free to continue on without me.
Haha, but you didn't just leave it did you? You came back with some comment suggesting that i was missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Don't be snide. It's not a good look on anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
WHy don't you actually read what i said instead of trying to put a spin on it. Weed impairs your judgement , reaction speed so that if you smoke weed or have some alcohol your driving is impaired. If you have a crash as a result it may result in victims. All of my points were directed at Ong assertion that growing and selling cannabis was a victimless crime. I pointed out where that action of growing and selling cannabis could result in victims. In the uk drug driving is taken just as seriously by traffic police as drink driving and the cops now have a test for it.If the drugs weren't grown/sold originally , the purchasers wouldn't have caused those victims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Everyone knows that they shouldn't drink and drive, even though alcohol is legal, not many realise that they shouldn't drive under the influence of drugs and thats where your logic falls down .People using power tools , food processors would typically be using them without their judgement being impaired through drink and/or drugs.
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
Good points. I meant that something along the liens of the top 2% "on average." Lots of middle class people (and even some poor) pay net taxes, but then there are lots in those income groups that get huge subsidies. It's also possible it was just in federal income tax. I saw the data a while back and don't remember the details much.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm very interested in some examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
This is part of what I was getting at earlier when I said I'll never have an accurate understanding of reality; instead it matters what I believe. In your example, reality is one way, but how it affects one is dependent on their perspective.
There is a third option: anarcho-capitalism. It's more or less about not creating monopolies and letting civilization form with the absence of the cultural sensibility that government is god.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I did read what you said Keith and while I appreciated the point you're trying to make, I also wanted to point out what I thought was the flaw in one bit of your reasoning, specifically here:
If you're going to define a producer's responsibility for their product as being dependent on what the purchaser does with the product, selling anything can be argued to be potentially dangerous and to cause victims. By your logic, if I sell a steak knife to someone who then goes and stabs someone, I'm responsible for the victim of that crime because it wouldn't have happened if I hadn't sold him that steak knife. Never mind that I didn't tell him to do that with it, he did and so now it's my fault for facilitating his behavior. Similarly, if I sell a power tool to some fool who cuts his arm off with it, I'm responsible for that too cause he wouldn't have cut his arm off if i hadn't sold him the tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
It's not Ong's fault if someone abuses what he's selling them or is ignorant of its effects. And if it is, it's equally the shopkeeper's fault for selling me wine if I go out and run someone over while pissed on it. Or the hardware store owner's fault for selling me the power saw, etc. etc.
Any good that government does is also dependent on this. It happens to be a much less efficient way to get the good results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'd have to say selling heroin is a victimless crime too by my definition, whereas keeping sex slaves is not since the slaves themselves are people being directly harmed in the transaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
For my part, I would say it's not realising there's a diminishing return with increased effort, to the point where the effort would better be expended elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Making sure every little thing is just right in an essay like there's not a single typo or the references are formatted perfectly, or putting pretty designs on the cover page. Memorizing a textbook word for word instead of just getting a solid grasp of the material. Shit like that.
In my view, the smartest ones are still diligent in their approach to their schoolwork, but they also understand what really matters and focus on getting that right. A lot of overachievers actually manage to be both diligent and attentive to irrelevant detail. They still get a top mark but it's kind of like 'fuck me, here's your 95, get a life'.
Ya, everyone has a different perspective. Thinking anyone who sees things differently from you is wrong doesn't make you right, it just makes you closed-minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Interesting. I tend to do the really nitty things you describe, and here's my explanation for why: I hate being graded down. It just feels bad. Like real bad. 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Don't get me started on the education system. Subsidies are ruining it. Even though I'm not a fan of the Prussian system ethos, it tends to work reasonably well, yet the mass subsidies are approximating it to a joke.
Right on schedule, the media-politician complex polls are showing Clinton with an enormous lead coming out of the debate.
Well I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that, but it's not like it sways me one way or the other if I see a typo. That said, different markers are sensitive to different things and some of the stuff that makes me see red doesn't seem to bother others and vice-versa. I can imagine there being someone out there who sees a reference formatted wrong and thinks 'minus 5 for that'. But I think (hope) they're pretty rare, cause honestly, what does it have to do with how strong your paper is?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
ugh do you really have to press that button.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
When I have grown... yes I paid for my electricty. Stolen electric is not my concern. I am not a thief, I acknowledge theft is wrong, and I acknowledge stealing electricty is theft. Merely thinking this is an issue is stupid. Yes, some people steal leccy to pay for their grow. Some people also steal cheese from Tesco. That also has nothing to do with me, even though I too eat cheese. For fuck's sake.
...does whatever, it is not my responsibility, just as it is not the responsibility of Fosters when someone drinks their piss and then drives into a bus stop. The crash vitcim is indeed a victim... but of the individual's poor judgement and reckless behaviour. Are those who have died to drink drivers victims of alcohol, or victims of the driver? You're passing the buck here. If you apply this to weed, then so too must you do for alcohol. While being stoned is obviously not optimal driving mental condition, it's nowhere near the same league as drink driving in terms of lack of judgement and recklessness, reaction times etc.Quote:
Secondly , when one of your customers...
Weed. That's where I draw the line. I'm totally in favour of decriminalising all drugs, but I would only ever get involved with weed, because I'm not stupid and understand that it is less harmful than the two dangerous and destructive drugs that we can buy from Tesco.Quote:
where do you draw the line ?
I have no interest in the sex slave, why is that relevant to your argument?
You did? I got my figures from wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
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?
Holy fuck, reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Careful poop, you'll wear out your welcome if you keep this up.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
*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.
No government?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Such a system has a name.
I'm bored of catching up. This is like a game of fucking werewolf.
lynch keith obviously
Starbucks drive through killed my dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Damn yuppies and their rock music.
Keith, I'm curious... which do you think is more immoral? Growing weed, or living off benefits?
If this is true, then why are you paying for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I know, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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.
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.
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.
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.
Damn this thread moves fast-- so kinda skimming and grunching and whatnot..
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Ain't no second chances in life. Gotta do it right the first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
:banana:
I agree it's a ridiculous argument if you take it to its logical conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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?
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.
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.
My first thought was "am I wrong", so obviously I did know what he meant!Quote:
I doubt you had trouble parsing his meaning for even a second.
I only picked him up on it because I checked and was proven right, so I gloat.
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.