Mass shooting in Main

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,352
11,066
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
So you're allowed to go off topic in other topics but then b!tch about others going off topic when you don't like it?
Only when it's a massacre and tragedy do I have a problem. I don't mind going off topic every now and then, but when it comes to stuff like this I don't play around. Not my fault you can't bother to do the same nor show the same courtesy. So how about you learn to do that for once in your life? Because so far you have not done anything useful in this thread but be a contrarian and goal post like you usually do. You don't care about anyone but yourself and you sure don't give a damn about the victims of any of these shootings. You never did. Your posts speak for itself; deal with it.
 
Last edited:

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,352
11,066
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Now back to actual important matters.





 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,822
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
I presented the info, it's all there.
You presented a 15-minute video I'm not watching because I've got better things to do. If you can't explain your own position in your own words, it's not worth considering.

You think the rich getting richer is all republicans not wanting to tax the rich, but a fully democratic run state taxes the rich the least in all of America. Income inequality grows greater because the rich are taxed the least which is directly caused by democratic policy of taxing the rich the least. But, nope, I'm sure in your head, that's not a direct line of causation.
Firstly: I think the rich getting richer has a dozen causes, one of which is lax taxation by both Republicans and Democrats.

Secondly: bullshit. According to SmartAsset, the 3 states that tax the wealthiest the least are Wyoming, Nevada, and Tennessee, all of which have Republican Governors.

The 3 that tax the wealthiest the most are Washington, Vermont and Oregon. Washington and Oregon have Democratic Governors. Vermont has a Republican Governor.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,822
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
Isn't Vermont notoriously politically split, given it can elect both a Republican Governor and Bernie Sanders?
Well, Phil Scott is a self-described "liberal Republican"-- he voted for Biden, supported the impeachment of Trump, etc.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
Imagine if I told you your pilot got his pilot's licence from a two-day online course. Would your trust stay the same? And if not, does that mean trust and training are 100% correlated in society, regardless of profession/responsibility? Obviously not.
Yes, my trust would stay the same. My faith in a flight is not only the pilot, but also the plane, and everyone involved in maintaining it, and in the air traffic controllers, and the people who built the runways... it goes a lot of ways.

So at the end of the day, I'm not thinking about each and every individual my life depends on, I'm trusting the whole organization I'm paying to fly me around, and if they feel they have good enough justification to trust that pilot, who am I to judge?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,822
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yes, my trust would stay the same. My faith in a flight is not only the pilot, but also the plane, and everyone involved in maintaining it, and in the air traffic controllers, and the people who built the runways... it goes a lot of ways.

So at the end of the day, I'm not thinking about each and every individual my life depends on, I'm trusting the whole organization I'm paying to fly me around, and if they feel they have good enough justification to trust that pilot, who am I to judge?
Oooook. You're either fibbing for the sake of the argument, or your trust is extraordinarily cheap.

Firstly, when you refer to the whole team of engineers and air traffic controllers etc... keep in mind that the same rationale applies. If you're happy to strip formal training from the pilot, then you can be equally happy with an air traffic controller who read a few articles about it rather than attending the course and gaining accreditation. And the engineers maintaining the plane didn't train either; they got a certificate printed out from a website after an online test.

Suffice it to say that for me and most people, trust is dependent. Its not automatic and it isn't blindly placed. That's the point of accreditation and regulation.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,371
2,032
118
If we imagine a world not built around liberal arts education, I'm not sure the classroom study would even be seen as necessary.
I'm sure that was very clear to you with all the added context of your own internal thought processes, but if you want other people to know what you're getting at you need to communicate appropriate detail.

Exactly this. There already are licensed fields where a college degree are not necessary.
And yet, for many of the reasons already given, degrees are still more efficient. When you say even under your model of non-degree routes most people would still take a degree, you are essentially conceding that point.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,371
2,032
118
So at the end of the day, I'm not thinking about each and every individual my life depends on, I'm trusting the whole organization I'm paying to fly me around, and if they feel they have good enough justification to trust that pilot, who am I to judge?
Right. But organisations trust people and things through systems of qualifications, exams, accreditations, etc.

A degree certificate from a non-accredited course is a useless piece of paper as far as most organisations are concerned. The demand that people have a degree doesn't come from universities, it comes from employers, professional bodies and other regulators. (If they also want to permit other access routes, that's up to them.)

You are trusting organisations and okay... but organisations trust - and in many cases have themselves specifically developed and set up - these systems to vet applicants. So you may as well extend that trust in organisations to the systems the organisations use to determine what employees they trust.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
Oooook. You're either fibbing for the sake of the argument, or your trust is extraordinarily cheap.

Firstly, when you refer to the whole team of engineers and air traffic controllers etc... keep in mind that the same rationale applies. If you're happy to strip formal training from the pilot, then you can be equally happy with an air traffic controller who read a few articles about it rather than attending the course and gaining accreditation. And the engineers maintaining the plane didn't train either; they got a certificate printed out from a website after an online test.

Suffice it to say that for me and most people, trust is dependent. Its not automatic and it isn't blindly placed. That's the point of accreditation and regulation.
There are alternative programs for air traffic controllers. Plane mechanics do just need to pass tests to be licensed (though part of the test is practical, so online won't work). A commercial pilot's license is something you can legitimately just read the info you need from books, then you start working on the minimum 1500 hours of flight time. Not a single one of these roles requires a bachelor's degree (though many corporations demand it).
And yet, for many of the reasons already given, degrees are still more efficient. When you say even under your model of non-degree routes most people would still take a degree, you are essentially conceding that point.
Only if you think people make their major life decisions purely based on efficiency. I don't think efficiency is the draw of college for just about anyone, whether they go because they want to or because their desired career requires it.

Edit: I feel like I could add some more context from my brain for this one. There are many roles that do not require a degree in any legal, licensed, or practical sense, yet organizations demand them uniformly because that's just what people do. Nobody needs a degree to do menial office work, but if you want to do menial office work for a nationwide US-based organization, you better get one. Government job? Better get a degree. Literally doesn't matter what the degree is in, it's just gatekeeping. Like, I worked for UPS for a year, they were ready to promote me out of the union job into management in 2 months based solely on work performance, but only if I either had a degree or signed a note promising I'd start taking classes in a certain timeframe (I signed their note and got out before the deadline).

Like, you both see this accountability and accreditation, what I see is HR being useless. Organizations that are hiring have stopped even considering the quality of candidates in many cases, all they're looking at is whether the pieces of paper that come with check enough boxes to say "well, they had all the qualifications, how could we have known they suck?" And this is a bad thing for everyone, especially colleges. Corporate culture demanding degrees for jobs that have no business asking for them is part of why universities are advertising all the money you can make by going there, and now universities are half filled with people who do not care about what they're "learning", they just want the piece of paper that makes them money. Which is bad for those people who are spending years of their life on something they don't care about, bad for the other students who could otherwise be surrounded by enthusiastic learners, bad for the companies getting useless graduates based on needless qualifications, bad for universities who now have to cater to this type of non-student student, and bad for those disadvantaged that they lack the time and resources to get a degree being gatekept out of good jobs that they're perfectly capable of. It's a bad situation for everyone.
 
Last edited:

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,371
2,032
118
Only if you think people make their major life decisions purely based on efficiency. I don't think efficiency is the draw of college for just about anyone, whether they go because they want to or because their desired career requires it.
Well, we live in societies, and what matters for societies is efficiency at a societal level. This is, for instance, a key basis of capitalism: efficiency means cheaper goods and services means profit. Someone somewhere also loses their job, or whatever else.

We have already discussed organisations pushing for efficiency, and systems of qualifications and accreditations and regulations are pretty useful at trying to establish that people have met certain standards that the organisation desires.

However, for a student, a degree offers a planned, regular programme which gets them where they want to go. Do they really want to take their chances with unregulated systems that may have uncertain qualities, outputs, timeframes, costs? Kind of no, really: it could be a lot time, effort and money to waste if the gamble goes sour. Alternative programmes that would offer the same security such as apprenticeships would also do, but for the most part and in many areas, degrees are just what's available and where it's at.

Literally doesn't matter what the degree is in, it's just gatekeeping. Like, I worked for UPS for a year, they were ready to promote me out of the union job into management in 2 months based solely on work performance, but only if I either had a degree or signed a note promising I'd start taking classes in a certain timeframe (I signed their note and got out before the deadline).

Like, you both see this accountability and accreditation, what I see is HR being useless. Organizations that are hiring have stopped even considering the quality of candidates in many cases, all they're looking at is whether the pieces of paper that come with check enough boxes to say "well, they had all the qualifications, how could we have known they suck?"
HR needs efficiency, too. You have a CV and an interview, and neither of those are ever going to be foolproof: duffers (especially if they are good at blagging and appear very confident) will always slip through. The process is to maximise the probability of a decent hire within a reasonable workload.

So let's say you have 50 applicants, a panel of three people, and it takes an hour to scrutinise the CV and prep the interview, and an hour for interview. To do all, that's 300 hours of work time to appoint someone (not including other background bureaucracy). Or you can find a way to filter out the candidates less likely to be competent: so, why not qualifications? Very likely some companies may use degrees to filter when the job doesn't require a degree. It's still likely beneficial to them. And if they can't get enough applicants, they just re-advertise dropping a degree as a requirement.

Finally, what you're saying here after just telling us you trust organisations is that you don't trust organisations. You are telling us that in your opinion your employer was not competently determining the capabilities required for the job you were interested in. But another way of looking at it might be that the organisation has correctly determined the professional development expectations that will lead to competent personnel. In this, the assumption might be that you are not fully competent at the time of appointment, but they think you will be with additional training, which is why they demanded you take a course. And many employers do that: a candidate has promise but they need development, so their contract requires them to get that development and have proof they learnt was expected of them to a reasonable standard.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,822
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
There are alternative programs for air traffic controllers. Plane mechanics do just need to pass tests to be licensed (though part of the test is practical, so online won't work). A commercial pilot's license is something you can legitimately just read the info you need from books, then you start working on the minimum 1500 hours of flight time. Not a single one of these roles requires a bachelor's degree (though many corporations demand it).
To be clear, your objections to accreditation and HE only apply to bachelor's degrees, then? Not to technical courses?

Because when we were talking about doctors, you seemed to be dismissing the Importance of medical school. But that's not just a BA or Bachelor of Science; it's a role-specific, technical course.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,352
11,066
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Fundraisers for the shooting victims.



 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,705
764
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You presented a 15-minute video I'm not watching because I've got better things to do. If you can't explain your own position in your own words, it's not worth considering.



Firstly: I think the rich getting richer has a dozen causes, one of which is lax taxation by both Republicans and Democrats.

Secondly: bullshit. According to SmartAsset, the 3 states that tax the wealthiest the least are Wyoming, Nevada, and Tennessee, all of which have Republican Governors.

The 3 that tax the wealthiest the most are Washington, Vermont and Oregon. Washington and Oregon have Democratic Governors. Vermont has a Republican Governor.
Can lead a horse to water...


Only when it's a massacre and tragedy do I have a problem. I don't mind going off topic every now and then, but when it comes to stuff like this I don't play around. Not my fault you can't bother to do the same nor show the same courtesy. So how about you learn to do that for once in your life? Because so far you have not done anything useful in this thread but be a contrarian and goal post like you usually do. You don't care about anyone but yourself and you sure don't give a damn about the victims of any of these shootings. You never did. Your posts speak for itself; deal with it.
I care about macro-level causes and trends vs singular events.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,822
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
Can lead a horse to water...

Let's look at how well this supports the claims you've made, then. Firstly: that "Income inequality grows greater because the rich are taxed the least which is directly caused by democratic policy of taxing the rich the least".

So, your source identifies 10 states with "the most regressive tax systems". I'll put an (R) or a (D) next to each one to show which party their governors belong to. Washington (D), Florida (R), Texas (R), South Dakota (R), Nevada (R), Tennessee (R), Pennsylvania (D), Illinois (D), Oklahoma (R), Wyoming (R).

So, that's seven Republican-run states and three Democratic-run states.

Secondly: your claim that "a fully democratic run state taxes the rich the least in all of America."

According to your own source, the state that taxes the top 1% the least is... Nevada (R). Second and third are Florida (R) and South Dakota (R). Washington comes in at about sixth.

Your source also identifies 10 states it says have a "more equitable", progressive tax system, putting more of the burden on higher earners and less on lower earners. They are...

California (D), DC (no governor, but Democratic mayor), Vermont (R), Delaware (D), Minnesota (D), New Jersey (D), Maine (D), New York (D), Montana (R), Maryland (D).

Huh! Eight Democratic-run states and two Republican!

So, uhrm, looks like you're full of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,371
2,032
118
Let's look at how well this supports the claims you've made, then. Firstly: that "Income inequality grows greater because the rich are taxed the least which is directly caused by democratic policy of taxing the rich the least".
Although what's also key to look at are provision of public services with tax money.

For instance, a state that taxed the rich 5% and the poor 1% but spend nothing on public services would potentially leave the poor worse off than a state that taxed both rich and poor 10% but also provided a number of services to alleviate poverty.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
However, for a student, a degree offers a planned, regular programme which gets them where they want to go. Do they really want to take their chances with unregulated systems that may have uncertain qualities, outputs, timeframes, costs? Kind of no, really: it could be a lot time, effort and money to waste if the gamble goes sour.
Some people absolutely would. There are already careers and workplaces that do not require degrees, but which people get degrees anyway (though much less of those positions than there used to be). There just also are some people who dive right in without the 4 year hiatus.
HR needs efficiency, too. You have a CV and an interview, and neither of those are ever going to be foolproof: duffers (especially if they are good at blagging and appear very confident) will always slip through. The process is to maximise the probability of a decent hire within a reasonable workload.
On a micro scale, you make perfect sense. On a societal scale, you create a system of warped incentives that drive people to expensive institutions which often are barely related to the end goal.
To be clear, your objections to accreditation and HE only apply to bachelor's degrees, then? Not to technical courses?

Because when we were talking about doctors, you seemed to be dismissing the Importance of medical school. But that's not just a BA or Bachelor of Science; it's a role-specific, technical course.
My objection is not to any of the courses, nor to accreditation. My objection is to wasting people's time on things they otherwise have no reason to care about.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,822
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
Although what's also key to look at are provision of public services with tax money.

For instance, a state that taxed the rich 5% and the poor 1% but spend nothing on public services would potentially leave the poor worse off than a state that taxed both rich and poor 10% but also provided a number of services to alleviate poverty.
Oh, definitely-- but we both know Phoenix isn't going to look any deeper than headline figures, so the best hope I have is showing that even the headline figures strongly disagree with him.

My objection is not to any of the courses, nor to accreditation. My objection is to wasting people's time on things they otherwise have no reason to care about.
Yes, but in order to make that objection, you opined that regulated training and accreditation shouldn't be necessary for a doctor.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,381
920
118
Country
USA
Yes, but in order to make that objection, you opined that regulated training and accreditation shouldn't be necessary for a doctor.
Yes. Just be sure you're understanding that "not necessary" doesn't mean abolish those things, it means it could be possible to skip those.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
10,822
5,736
118
Country
United Kingdom
Yes. Just be sure you're understanding that "not necessary" doesn't mean abolish those things, it means it could be possible to skip those.
Yes, I do understand that. OK, replace "objection to [...]" with "objection to the requirement for [...]". I thought that was clear from context but I can see how maybe it wasn't.

So: your objection to the requirement for accreditation/training only applies to bachelor's degrees, then, not to technical courses? Because saying that medical doctors don't need regulated training implies one thing, but then saying engineers and flight controllers should still be undergoing these regulated training courses implies another.