How fair is the student protest?

jacee · May 21, 2012

Behavior modulated by price signals is called the market economy.

Education is a necessity to economic and human progress, not a market commodity.

Edited May 21, 2012 by jacee

Argus · May 21, 2012

It is human nature to put more value on something that requires a persons own investment than on something that is just handed to them. Any parent knows that.

My guess is more likely the opposite. Most of those who are paying their own way can't afford to piss away a year marching in the streets bitching about "the man".

Yes, that is my perception and experience, as well. If I'd worked hard to get up the money to pay my tuition, and if I was determined to get an education in order to improve my lot in life I'd be in class, not playing in the streets like the others. I'm thinking those who are striking are almost certainly overwhelmingly the children of the elites. They have no worries about supporting themselves, and no fears for the future for their parents are paying the way and their parents have connections.

punked · May 21, 2012

Your complete ignorance is jaw dropping. Behavior modulated by price signals is called the market economy. Our entire economy is built on this foundation and it works quite well. It is the same argument used by the various enviros demanding carbon taxes. It is simply absurd to suggest that they have no place in education.

His argument is the same reason we have free public education from grades 1-12. Are you saying that we should be charging for that to?

jacee · May 21, 2012

Well, if my guess is wrong and they can afford to piss away a year marching in the streets, they aren't so hard up after all.

You may have noticed protests occur only in the evening?

Yours is a very short-sighted view. Fortunately the students have a longer term perspective that includes the well-being of future students as well as their own.

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

Adolescents don't like to recognize this fact but their brain is not totally developed while they are of university age. Research has proven that while they can absorb immense amounts of data very quickly it tends to be accepted without question. It is only in later life that they mature enough to be better at critical analysis - BS filtering, in other words.

Hmmm. You might be on to something. I was far more conservative in my university days, and have since learned a few things.

jacee · May 21, 2012

Yes, that is my perception and experience, as well. If I'd worked hard to get up the money to pay my tuition, and if I was determined to get an education in order to improve my lot in life I'd be in class, not playing in the streets like the others. I'm thinking those who are striking are almost certainly overwhelmingly the children of the elites. They have no worries about supporting themselves, and no fears for the future for their parents are paying the way and their parents have connections.

If Mommy and Daddy are paying the shot, why would they care about tuition costs?

You are quite wrong.

Wild Bill · May 21, 2012

Bullying is such fun eh Bill?

Keep in mind that they are rolling their eyes at your ignorance as they are walking away.

What a fine model you are for youth.

Bullying? I call it teasing. My brain went through the same stage, of course!

I find it ironic in the extreme that you choose to simply make a flat statement to me, couched in a haughty and condescending manner, WHILE NOT SAYING A SINGLE WORD TOWARDS AGREEING WITH OR REBUTTING MY PREMISE!

You must be young. You could not have picked a better way to prove what I had written than if you had planned it deliberately!

Wild Bill · May 21, 2012

Hmmm. You might be on to something. I was far more conservative in my university days, and have since learned a few things.

Exactly! It's not always a liberal/conservative thing. Especially when today both sides of the political spectrum tend to "spread the cowflops".

I'll wager your values and philosophies are more well thought out and proven these days than when you were younger, regardless of ending up on the left or the right.

There ARE valid arguments for leftwing values! It's just that the Left here in Canada seems never to express any. It's always emotional dreams or ad hominem attacks on whoever disagrees with them.

To them politics is not a philosophy. It is a faith! They don't argue with those they consider heretics because their own beliefs are simply facts of the Universe! Heretics are to be ignored or despised, not debated. After all, heretics are evil! Only leftwing people care about their fellow man! Rightwing people are mean and spiteful!

Just listen to ANY of the rhetoric from the left and my point is obvious!

Better yet, spend a few days on "rubble.com". Make a post disagreeing with a "progressive" leftwing position and see what happens.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Wild Bill

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

Exactly! It's not always a liberal/conservative thing. Especially when today both sides of the political spectrum tend to "spread the cowflops".

I'll wager your values and philosophies are more well thought out and proven these days than when you were younger, regardless of ending up on the left or the right.

There ARE valid arguments for leftwing values! It's just that the Left here in Canada seems never to express any. It's always emotional dreams or ad hominem attacks on whoever disagrees with them.

To them politics is not a philosophy. It is a faith! They don't argue with those they consider heretics because their own beliefs are simply facts of the Universe! Heretics are to be ignored or despised, not debated. After all, heretics are evil! Only leftwing people care about their fellow man! Rightwing people are mean and spiteful!

Just listen to ANY of the rhetoric from the left and my point is obvious!

Better yet, spend a few days on "rubble.com". Make a post disagreeing with a "progressive" leftwing position and see what happens.

I don't know, man...I've just been involved in a few discussions on this board about how stupid, shallow, venal, feminine (evidently a towering insult) "the Left" really is. We are mentally unfit; moral simpletons; artistic adolescents; and on and on.

If you're choosing sides, WB, the side you've chosen is composed to some degree of folks who are mean as rattlesnakes.

So as you said, it's not a liberal vs conservative thing...though you went on to contradict this completely in the same post.

Edited May 21, 2012 by bleeding heart

Wild Bill · May 21, 2012

I don't know, man...I've just been involved in a few discussions on this board about how stupid, shallow, venal, feminine (evidently a towering insult) "the Left" really is. We are mentally unfit; moral simpletons; artistic adolescents; and on and on.

If you're choosing sides, WB, the side you've chosen is composed to some degree of folks who are mean as rattlesnakes.

So as you said, it's not a liberal vs conservative thing...though you went on to contradict this completely in the same post.

No, there's no contradiction. My premise is that younger folks haven't yet had their brains develop good critical thinking. Sponges for facts without digesting and considering their validity. This has nothing to do with left or right philosophy, per se.

The last half of my post is really a separate issue. There my point was the way the CANADIAN LEFT expresses itself! There have been many strong intellectuals worldwide on the left both today and down through history.

The vitriol and outright hatred towards any who disagree seems to be strongest here in Canada. Look how Jaycee responded to my post! Not a word of debate. Just an attempt to make me out to look intolerant. No consideration at all towards the validity of my position.

It's easier just to say I'm simply wrong! As if I come from the wrong church so why listen to me!

There have been and are leftwing posters here on MLB who express this attitude even more strongly.

I even detect a whiff of this stance in YOUR reply!

I have found this attitude strongest among younger folks. This is culled strictly from experience and I couldn't care less if younger folks agree or disagree. Frankly, I expect them to disagree as an emotional reaction to not being considered intellectually fully mature. Again, that is Jaycee's reaction.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Wild Bill

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

No, there's no contradiction.

Right. It's "not a liberal/conservative thing," and "both sides" do it...but man! Have you noticed how stupid the Left is?

There have been and are leftwing posters here on MLB who express this attitude even more strongly.

Sure. And conservatives, too. (And in fact, self-described "centrists" are just as bad.)

That was my only point.

I even detect a whiff of this stance in YOUR reply!

That's because I pointed out to you the fact that there are conservatives here on this board behaving exactly as you claim "the left" behaves.

It's pretty straightforward.

Wild Bill · May 21, 2012

Sure. And conservatives, too. (And in fact, self-described "centrists" are just as bad.)

That was my only point.

That's because I pointed out to you the fact that there are conservatives here on this board behaving exactly as you claim "the left" behaves.

I don't disagree with you in the slightest, BH! I can understand why you don't like being lumped in with broad generalizations. I just don't see why you feel the need to point out some conservatives are guilty of the same sort of thinking. What difference does that make?

Or perhaps you were just painting ME with a broad brush? Since I often disagree with many lefties on this board I must believe some sort of rightwing catechism? Maybe, one written by Angus?

Signals.Cpl · May 21, 2012

You may have noticed protests occur only in the evening?

What does that have to do with anything?

Signals.Cpl · May 21, 2012

If Mommy and Daddy are paying the shot, why would they care about tuition costs?

You are quite wrong.

You still haven't proven that all the protestors or at least the majority of them are the have nots rather then the have's.

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

I don't disagree with you in the slightest, BH! I can understand why you don't like being lumped in with broad generalizations. I just don't see why you feel the need to point out some conservatives are guilty of the same sort of thinking. What difference does that make?

That both are guilty, rather than one? It makes all the difference; it cuts to the bone of this very discussion we're having.

madmax · May 21, 2012

Or perhaps you were just painting ME with a broad brush? Since I often disagree with many lefties on this board I must believe some sort of rightwing catechism? Maybe, one written by Angus?

:lol: :lol:

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

Since I often disagree with many lefties on this board I must believe some sort of rightwing catechism? Maybe, one written by Angus?

I don't think Argus is indulging in any rightwing catechism, because I don't see him as a doctrinaire right-winger. He's simply opposed to the domestic left, in general..in fact, he avows that he "despises" them. To me this seems harsh, and aligned with the lefties here using "fascist" as a descriptor of nearly everything, but to each his own.

TimG · May 21, 2012

His argument is the same reason we have free public education from grades 1-12. Are you saying that we should be charging for that to?

Last time I checked there were no choices to be made for K-12. Everyone goes to school for the same amount of time and learns roughly the same material and they can't stay in indefinitely.

When it comes to university people have to make choices: i.e. what major or trade school, whether to get a masters or PhD and people can stay in university indefinitely. Given these choices it is irresponsible not to put a price on it to ensure that people think carefully about their choices and don't go unless they are convinced it is worth it.

Wilber · May 21, 2012

What does that have to do with anything?

Indeed when some at least are patrolling schools and harrasing students and teachers who are continuing their classes.

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

Last time I checked there were no choices to be made for K-12. Everyone goes to school for the same amount of time and learns roughly the same material and they can't stay in indefinitely.

When it comes to university people have to make choices: i.e. what major or trade school, whether to get a masters or PhD and people can stay in university indefinitely. Given these choices it is irresponsible not to put a price on it to ensure that people think carefully about their choices and don't go unless they are convinced it is worth it.

Ah! So now people are charged money for services and goods based on a moral imperative that it's good for them.

That's the prupose of charging money for stuff.

I had never thought of Walmart as intent on improving the masses, but I will rethink the matter.

TimG · May 21, 2012

Ah! So now people are charged money for services and goods based on a moral imperative that it's good for them.

It is certainly more moral than making tuition free and then rationing access to university via wait lists because the government has no ability control demand with a price signal. If university is so valuable then students should be willing to pay for it (with student loans if necessary). If students are not willing to pay something then maybe university is not as valuable as you claim.

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

It is certainly more moral than making tuition free and then rationing access to university via wait lists because the government has no ability control demand with a price signal. If university is so valuable then students should be willing to pay for it (with student loans if necessary). If students are not willing to pay something then maybe university is not as valuable as you claim.

I'm just fascinated to watch "free market" advocates suddenly claim there's a moral purpose behind profit-making...for the sake of the payer, not the payee...which is in direct contradiction to all capitalist and free market theory.

Wilber · May 21, 2012

I'm just fascinated to watch "free market" advocates suddenly claim there's a moral purpose behind profit-making...for the sake of the payer, not the payee...which is in direct contradiction to all capitalist and free market theory.

I don't think it has anything to do with morality, it is about putting a value on something. In a capitalist system, if something is "free", it follows that it has no value. Except of course to those who are paying for this so called "free" product.

bleeding heart · May 21, 2012

I don't think it has anything to do with morality, it is about putting a value on something. In a capitalist system, if something is "free", it follows that it has no value. Except of course to those who are paying for this so called "free" product.

First of all, there is a lot more to "value" than money--by everyone's consideration, with no exceptions, to my knowledge.

Second, you're not arguing with me, but with TimG.

Wilber · May 21, 2012

First of all, there is a lot more to "value" than money--by everyone's consideration, with no exceptions, to my knowledge.

Second, you're not arguing with me, but with TimG.

In this case the "value", still has to be paid for. The issue is who pays, the ones providing the value or the ones receiving it.

I know, and I disagree with him on this point. I don't think morality has much to do with either capitalism or socialism.