Jump to content

Anonymous Threaten Canadian GP


Danqazmlp

Recommended Posts

Why shouldn't society invest in education (for smart people at least)?

Come up with a good argument around this and I might just agree with you. Here's a hint: talk about positive externalities.

 

Based on your rants about self-entitlement, it seems that you are also completely against student loans because you believe that everyone must pay out of pocket.

Nope, I'm not against student loans. When people take out loans, invest in themselves, and pay those loans back, they're being responsible and self reliant.

 

How do you expect there to be enough doctors, lawyers, etc. if everyone must work full-time while at the same time being a full-time student (in addition to other obligations, such as a family)? For many people, especially those with lower income, it's hard enough to pay for tuition in addition to living expenses (even with financial aid). If society expects to benefit from future doctors, lawyers, etc., I do not think it is unreasonable to help finance higher education (at least for the hard-working, intelligent students).

What I'm arguing against is very different than loans. Right now, students around the world are directly subsidized by tax payers (no loans). What they're complaining about is having to pay the increasing cost of education. What they're arguing for is very selfish, they want other people to pay for their education.

Also, by harming unrelated parties (like F1), they're not arguing intelligently, they're being a lawless mob.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To a certain extent, yes. However, they are not supposed to be physically dangerous/destructive to everyone else. At that point it's no longer a protest, it's a riot.

But we're not discussing that, we're discussing Bill 78. Even with a constent protest, people can still go "[bleep] it" and burn things down.

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, students around the world are directly subsidized by tax payers (no loans). What they're complaining about is having to pay the increasing cost of education. What they're arguing for is very selfish, they want other people to pay for their education.

 

I understand that tuition in Quebec has to increase. But the way you word your argument is completely ignorant.

 

Taxes already subsidize their education. Universities are already publicly funded. This is just trying to maintain status quo. They aren't going around "we want to pay less than we already are".

 

Again, American mentality is clouding your judgment here. You have to realize Quebec already has the highest taxes in North America. I for one would rather see tax money go into education than the pockets of government officials. Students shouldn't suffer because of the idiocy of the current government.

 

Another thing you need to realize is that the full effect of this law will barely affect these students. They're not only fighting for themselves, but for future university students. They'd be graduated by the time the price increase goes into full effect.

 

Oh and just to make your blood boil, you do know there are European countries with free university education? Weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a certain extent, yes. However, they are not supposed to be physically dangerous/destructive to everyone else. At that point it's no longer a protest, it's a riot.

But we're not discussing that, we're discussing Bill 78. Even with a constent protest, people can still go "[bleep] it" and burn things down.

Except that Bill 78 is a direct (if extreme) result of the protesters choice to cross that line.

 

Students shouldn't suffer because of the idiocy of the current government.

Nor should they suffer because of the idiocy of their student leaders. Those same student leaders will be government leaders in less than two decades. I wonder how hard they'll fight then to keep giving away money they don't have, or how quick they'll be to become violent and go to jail.

 

Might that be because there are countries in Europe whose governments aren't completely corrupt and totally inept when it comes to fiscal responsibility? Perhaps the provincial and federal branches here in Canada should be taking notes.

 

f2punitedfcbanner_zpsf83da077.png

THE place for all free players to connect, hang out and talk about how awesome it is to be F2P.

So, Kaida is the real version of every fictional science-badass? That explains a lot, actually...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor should they suffer because of the idiocy of their student leaders. Those same student leaders will be government leaders in less than two decades. I wonder how hard they'll fight then to keep giving away money they don't have, or how quick they'll be to become violent and go to jail.

 

Baseless assumption.

 

Might that be because there are countries in Europe whose governments aren't completely corrupt and totally inept when it comes to fiscal responsibility? Perhaps the provincial and federal branches here in Canada should be taking notes.

 

This supports my argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxes already subsidize their education. Universities are already publicly funded. This is just trying to maintain status quo. They aren't going around "we want to pay less than we already are".

Let's use hard numbers then.

 

Say last year it cost a grand total of $20,000 to educate a Canadian student for a year. This includes what the student paid, and what the taxpayers paid. Say the student paid $5,000 and the taxpayers paid $15,000.

 

Let's suppose the cost of education increases from $20,000 per year last year to $30,000 per year this year. What's maintaining the status quo? Students paying 25% of the cost, or paying $5,000 total? Is it taxpayers paying $15,000 total?

 

 

If you're arguing that students shouldn't have to pay for any ofthe rising costs, you're arguing that someone else should pay for it instead. You're also arguing that students should pay relatively less for their education. So no, I think your mentality that "we want to maintain the status quo" actually means, "we want to pay less than we already are."

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking out of my ass, but I think the cost of education isn't what has changed. It's still 20k total but since the government can't afford to keep up the 15k so they're changing the proportions.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxes already subsidize their education. Universities are already publicly funded. This is just trying to maintain status quo. They aren't going around "we want to pay less than we already are".

Let's use hard numbers then.

 

Say last year it cost a grand total of $20,000 to educate a Canadian student for a year. This includes what the student paid, and what the taxpayers paid. Say the student paid $5,000 and the taxpayers paid $15,000.

 

Let's suppose the cost of education increases from $20,000 per year last year to $30,000 per year this year. What's maintaining the status quo? Students paying 25% of the cost, or paying $5,000 total? Is it taxpayers paying $15,000 total?

 

 

If you're arguing that students shouldn't have to pay for any ofthe rising costs, you're arguing that someone else should pay for it instead. You're also arguing that students should pay relatively less for their education. So no, I think your mentality that "we want to maintain the status quo" actually means, "we want to pay less than we already are."

 

For one thing you can't call these hard numbers if they're made up. They're figurative.

 

I'm not against increasing tuition. But to put it into a legit context, you say you're paying 35K every year. If the gov't says it will increase to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against increasing tuition. But to put it into a legit context, you say you're paying 35K every year. If the gov't says it will increase to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

It wouldn't be the government raising tuition, it would be my university. Also, how many times in the past has tuition rose?

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to explain more to me, you can do it in private, and you can write it in french if it works better for you, when in the PM.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%A8ve_%C3%A9tudiante_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise_de_2012

The french one is there all the details are at. The english version is like 50x shorter, it's not an abstract, there's just a major lack of information. If you can read french, then have fun. :thumbup:

w3bi.png


7ahl.pngZr.png1buy.png


eblo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your university says it will increase from 35k to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

That's a bit of a pointless question, isn't it?

I'd weigh the benefits of paying an extra 22k per year versus my expected income from completing my degree. I'd also look to transfer elsewhere for a cheaper alternative, if it existed.

 

I might be upset with my university, but an absurd reaction would be to lash out at some arbitrary third party. I also wouldn't be selfish enough to think that someone else should pay for it instead of me.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your university says it will increase from 35k to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

 

You're talking about two completely different sums of money though. One is almost nothing, and one is ridiculousness.

sig2-3.jpg

 

Three months banishment to 9gag is something i would never wish upon anybody, not even my worst enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to explain more to me, you can do it in private, and you can write it in french if it works better for you, when in the PM.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%A8ve_%C3%A9tudiante_qu%C3%A9b%C3%A9coise_de_2012

The french one is there all the details are at. The english version is like 50x shorter, it's not an abstract, there's just a major lack of information. If you can read french, then have fun. :thumbup:

 

Of course I can read french, it's actually my mother tongue. That's why I have the Acadian flag as avatar. I'll read this when I have more time, I've been very busy with college lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your university says it will increase from 35k to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

That's a bit of a pointless question, isn't it?

I'd weigh the benefits of paying an extra 22k per year versus my expected income from completing my degree. I'd also look to transfer elsewhere for a cheaper alternative, if it existed.

 

I might be upset with my university, but an absurd reaction would be to lash out at some arbitrary third party. I also wouldn't be selfish enough to think that someone else should pay for it instead of me.

Except they're not expecting someone else to pay off their education. When you subsidize education, you are investing in the students who will go on to work higher paying jobs, pay more taxes, and pay for their tuition by subsidizing the next generation of students. It's a much better system than making students come out of university with 100k+ in debt. The only people who benefit from that are the banks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your university says it will increase from 35k to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

 

You're talking about two completely different sums of money though. One is almost nothing, and one is ridiculousness.

 

$1625 is almost nothing. Oh America.

That's like 3% of 57,000$. He means relatively.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that 1.6k is still a lot when you're not paying a lot. I understand why they're upset - they've become accustomed to having to pay basically nothing so an increase like that is obviously unwelcome. My problem with it is that it seems the protesters aren't using common sense to realize that this is a necessary evil.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your university says it will increase from 35k to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

That's a bit of a pointless question, isn't it?

I'd weigh the benefits of paying an extra 22k per year versus my expected income from completing my degree. I'd also look to transfer elsewhere for a cheaper alternative, if it existed.

 

I might be upset with my university, but an absurd reaction would be to lash out at some arbitrary third party. I also wouldn't be selfish enough to think that someone else should pay for it instead of me.

Except they're not expecting someone else to pay off their education. When you subsidize education, you are investing in the students who will go on to work higher paying jobs, pay more taxes, and pay for their tuition by subsidizing the next generation of students. It's a much better system than making students come out of university with 100k+ in debt. The only people who benefit from that are the banks.

Is your system better? Can you find evidence that Canadian graduates are more productive than American graduates? What about against students that take out loans and support themselves through college? From my experience, students that are given a free ride (or very cheap one at that) tend to change their majors more, graduate on time less, and take college less seriously (like flunk out or party more).

For example, each of my siblings has had to pay for their own schooling. The four of us so far have all (or will have) graduated on time. The two that have graduated already have jobs and aren't unemployed or living at home. Compare that to several of our friends whose parents are footing the bill, who have changed their majors, flunked out, or changed their schools. Some even have graduated and moved straight into their parent's basement.

 

http://www.theclause.org/2012/04/4158/

 

Also, my tuition has increased by about $1000 / year since I started. You can bridge that gap by working a couple weeks at a summer internship.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your university says it will increase from 35k to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

That's a bit of a pointless question, isn't it?

I'd weigh the benefits of paying an extra 22k per year versus my expected income from completing my degree. I'd also look to transfer elsewhere for a cheaper alternative, if it existed.

 

I might be upset with my university, but an absurd reaction would be to lash out at some arbitrary third party. I also wouldn't be selfish enough to think that someone else should pay for it instead of me.

Except they're not expecting someone else to pay off their education. When you subsidize education, you are investing in the students who will go on to work higher paying jobs, pay more taxes, and pay for their tuition by subsidizing the next generation of students. It's a much better system than making students come out of university with 100k+ in debt. The only people who benefit from that are the banks.

Is your system better? Can you find evidence that Canadian graduates are more productive than American graduates? What about against students that take out loans and support themselves through college? From my experience, students that are given a free ride (or very cheap one at that) tend to change their majors more, graduate on time less, and take college less seriously (like flunk out or party more).

For example, each of my siblings has had to pay for their own schooling. The four of us so far have all (or will have) graduated on time. The two that have graduated already have jobs and aren't unemployed or living at home. Compare that to several of our friends whose parents are footing the bill, who have changed their majors, flunked out, or changed their schools. Some even have graduated and moved straight into their parent's basement.

 

http://www.theclause.org/2012/04/4158/

 

Also, my tuition has increased by about $1000 / year since I started. You can bridge that gap by working a couple weeks at a summer internship.

 

I don't know about that. I can see the logic behind that, but on the other hand, here in Germany we pay very few tuiton fees (usally a maximum of 1000 per year, often less). And I don't think German students are particularly lazy, or at least not more than others.

 

The main reason why I personally dislike tuition fees is that I think everyone should have the same chances for education, yet with high tuition fees those coming out of poor families have a lot less chance to actually pull it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In France, changing programs is much harder, so that might explain the free tuition (I don't know if it's generalized or for only some unis). School is free as well, but it's still not enough to democratize education--only 15% of people who enroll into prestigious universities have no parents who graduated high school (that was in 1995, though, but it was quoted in a 2009 study by a governmental institute, so I assume it hasn't changed much). Some parents don't have the necessary experience to help their kids with school or can't afford tutoring and such, even though they want them in school (62% of kids who were in sixth grade in 1995 had no high school graduate parents). Kids who had at least one parent who had graduated high school had better chances to get more than just a passing grade.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide=Quote pyramid]

If your university says it will increase from 35k to 57k, you'd be fine with that?

That's a bit of a pointless question, isn't it?

I'd weigh the benefits of paying an extra 22k per year versus my expected income from completing my degree. I'd also look to transfer elsewhere for a cheaper alternative, if it existed.

 

I might be upset with my university, but an absurd reaction would be to lash out at some arbitrary third party. I also wouldn't be selfish enough to think that someone else should pay for it instead of me.

Except they're not expecting someone else to pay off their education. When you subsidize education, you are investing in the students who will go on to work higher paying jobs, pay more taxes, and pay for their tuition by subsidizing the next generation of students. It's a much better system than making students come out of university with 100k+ in debt. The only people who benefit from that are the banks.

[/hide]

Is your system better? Can you find evidence that Canadian graduates are more productive than American graduates? What about against students that take out loans and support themselves through college? From my experience, students that are given a free ride (or very cheap one at that) tend to change their majors more, graduate on time less, and take college less seriously (like flunk out or party more).

For example, each of my siblings has had to pay for their own schooling. The four of us so far have all (or will have) graduated on time. The two that have graduated already have jobs and aren't unemployed or living at home. Compare that to several of our friends whose parents are footing the bill, who have changed their majors, flunked out, or changed their schools. Some even have graduated and moved straight into their parent's basement.

 

http://www.theclause.org/2012/04/4158/

 

Also, my tuition has increased by about $1000 / year since I started. You can bridge that gap by working a couple weeks at a summer internship.

It's near enough universally accepted that future economies will become heavily skills-based as jobs become more technical. For countries to prosper, they need as many people going to university as possible to prepare them for life in the modern workforce. Many jobs which were previously taught on-the-go are now degree-level entry. Yet you would disincentivise higher education for families earning lower incomes so that they 'flunk out' less. I find that contemptible, and I also think you've made a correlation between subsidised education and "laziness" which you haven't properly established as anything more than coincidence (you referred to 'several friends'--hardly a valid sample size for entire country).

 

I know plenty of people who didn't go to university at all, who went straight into employment at 16, who 'flunk out' just as much as students who've had their tuition fees subsidised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.