19 December 2007

C'mon guys...

What were you thinking?

"I was stressed from exams and looking for something to give everyone a laugh," Lee said.

"I did it in the middle of the night. It lasted a couple of days. Someone pushed it over but I rebuilt it. Then they sent a bulldozer..."
You've gotta keep this sort of thing where it belongs... in the classroom.
"Visiting lecturers will address technical aspects of flogging, restraint, and role-play."


9 comments:

langmann said...

... But it's ok to have university scholarships just for women.

I remember one day during class back in Uni when we were having a class discussion about "how much tuition should be" and I said that I thought that tuition should be whatever the free market sets the cost at and that the government shouldn't subsidize any of it.

After the shock wore off I got attacked by pretty much everyone with big egos. (Mind you I was in medicine at the time and not economics where that kind of comment would have been met with a reasonable discussion of the pros-cons).

First I was a spoiled rich kid - until I let everyone know that I grew up remembering our family being so poor that I could see the road through the rusted bottom of the car.

Then a variety of other things such as poor people not making it into university (once again I worked my way through).

Then I said I didn't see why my tax money should pay for free education especially if someone couldn't expect to get a job with it. Take for instance - and I referred to a well known basket weaving area of study. (Of course I did preface it by saying I didn't care what anyone studies as long as they pay for it themselves.)

With that I was soundly attacked for implying that I thought my line of study was more important.

Damn right I think it is. When was the last time someone saved someone's life with a 9 inch solid rectal insert?

(However I don't think my area of education is more important. In fact I was willing to pay for the full cost of it. Ironically it was those people who were attacking me who thought their education was more important than other sutudents. It is well known that the highest subsidized area of study is medicine not Butt-Plugs 101... and I wasn't the one who thought medicine should be subsidized.)

KEvron said...

"But it's ok to have university scholarships just for women."

misogynistic much?

KEvron

langmann said...

misogynistic much?

KEvron


My my my, what a fine little troll. However, Troll has no idea if I am a man or a woman. Point is troll, double standards exist, but some are worth more than others...

But the problem is the troll is too stupid to see that we are all equal. The troll wants us to not be equal. The troll wants to help us not be equal.

I don't have a problem with private scholarships discriminating based upon race or gender or whatever they feel like doing - it's their money. I find it interesting that some people are worth less than others in 2007 in an organization we all pay for that considers itself blind to these things... Don't you. But then why am I asking? After all you're just a troll. If you had something interesting to offer, even if it were an alternate opinion, you'd be more than just a waste of bytes.

Kev(I forgot my LOL)ron said...

It's only kevron, the resident knucklehead, continue with regularly scheduled program.

Anonymous said...

We are equal under the law not equal in reality.
(real conservative)

KEvron said...

"We are equal under the law not equal in reality."

thank god for virtual reality, eh? lol!

KEvron

Anonymous said...

I thought that tuition should be whatever the free market sets the cost at and that the government shouldn't subsidize any of it.

langmann: You're saying we should completely privatise universities? What happened to public education as the cornerstone of functioning democracy? What about the fears of corporate dictation of academic direction based solely on profit motive? What about all of the research that is done at universities across North America that never have - and may never - turn a profit?

Extreme libertarianism is just as infeasible as extreme socialism.

langmann said...

langmann: You're saying we should completely privatise universities? What happened to public education as the cornerstone of functioning democracy? What about the fears of corporate dictation of academic direction based solely on profit motive? What about all of the research that is done at universities across North America that never have - and may never - turn a profit?

Extreme libertarianism is just as infeasible as extreme socialism.


Where is it written that free university is the corner stone of democracy? That's gibberish. A large number of people never go to university in Canada and democracy works for them.

As for research being driven by profit motive, it should be. If it can make a profit it's more than likely useful and beneficial to people. While I was in research a lot of it was driven this way. Moreover public funding is profit driven anway. If your research doesn't find anything you lose your public grants. You're always thinking of how to get more done to get more grants. Finally I am always amazed at how much public money was wasted by people who didn't care about the fact they were spending public money.

As for everything else, universities were around long before the government funded them. Then and now private people donate to areas they are interested in. Certain degrees would be a lot cheaper if the university wasn't trying to get money from the public purse to fund everything. Private people will fund things that don't turn a profit, look at all the useless socialist think tanks out there that get funded by unions.

Extreme libertarianism is feasable because everyone has to contribute. Socialism isn't feasable because someone else has to pay for everyone else.

Anonymous said...

langmann: You're wrong. There is plenty of important research that would not be done if it depended solely on a profit motive. I've seen how industry supports research - what it supports and what it does not support - and having industry decide what is good research is presuming that they do the researchers jobs better than the researchers themselves.

Education (specifically, public education) is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy. I recommend reading Dewey or Locke on THAT. You can argue that higher education is not included in public education, but it is becoming a much more difficult prospect given the increasing necessity of higher education in a specialized workforce, particularly in a globally competitive economic environment. Further, the movement of most industrialized Western nations towards a knowledge-based economy makes the argument against public higher education even more tenuous and difficult to make. In fact the strong and increasing correlation between higher eduction on quality of life and access to society's institutions, benefits and services makes any argument against some public subsidisation of higher education begin to seem like a forced diminuation of human rights.