Complete Failure of Leadership

Mack wrote: ^^^ Huh?

This isn't directly on topic but, since I'm not sure if even FE knows what the actual topic is anymore*, I don't care.  I'm going to quote myself** because it is a good introduction to the topic in question.***  The line in blue is what I mainly want to discuss.

Mack wrote: agentwhale007 wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: Why don't you give your scholarship that you won based on your grades to the guy most needy in your class?... You know the guy, he doesn't have great grades as school is really hard for him. Funny, I got this in a FWD: e-mail from my grandmother a few months back. It is, as I explained to her, apples to oranges.  A GPA starts at zero upon entrance into a school. Money doesn't work like that. GPA is not zero-sum, nor is it a physical tangible item. My 3.9 is not taking away from someone else's GPA, as there is not a GPA pool that everyone owns a percentage of. You cannot have a pie-chart with 100% of all the GPAs and divide them up. A dollar, on the other hand, is owned. The $1 I have in my wallet that I shall purchase coffee with later is one less dollar in a grand pool of dollars.  GPA never runs out. Theoretically, everyone at a given university could have a 4.0.  It's a non-commodity.  It's the comparison of a fungible good in the form of paper currency  to a ranking system.   On the topic of scholarship, I donate money every year back to the organizations that gave me my scholarships and helped me get through undergraduate school. Now, do you have any other FWD: e-mails with bad analogies?  Devil's advocate time.  FE didn't suggest sharing GPA, only money.  I took it to mean you should turn over your scholarship to someone who wasn't smart enough to get one on his/her own.

While this is true about GPA, I would argue that perhaps FE inadvertently made a valid point.  While GPA, unlike money, doesn't run out; it can be subject to inflationary forces.  For instance, if a certain school did decide to share GPAs, or even just give better GPAs to lesser students based on the liberal principal of the smart students must have cheated so the less intelligent students deserve a break,***** the the GPA would indeed be worth less.  It may apply to this school in particular or it may be applied more widespread but the effect would be a need for higher and higher GPAs to get into college/get good jobs.  An employer might decide that since the school only gives away good grades, they will only consider those with 4.0 GPAs instead of those with 3.5 or above.  In regards to colleges, they might start applying the same standard to their entrance requirements or scholarships.  Such standards would have to be universally applied because trying to apply them differently to students from different schools (higher standards for graduates of a diploma mill high school for example) would be an open invitation to a lawsuit of some kind.  In this example, the students who went to schools where they actually had to work for their grades would be "punished" because of those who didn't.  I would argue, based on very limited evidence and personal experience, that we may already be seeing some of this and that it could be contributing to the difficulty in getting government grants from a limited money pool when more people meet the performance requirements because of such lowering of standards.  I could even postulate that the poorer (as not as studious/intelligent) students that displace deserving students contribute to the educational decline and possibly to the productivity decline in this country.

One thing that I have seen that makes me think this is happening is my foray into the job market.  I see degrees required as a prerequisite for jobs where no such degree is necessary in many cases.  (For instance does a $12.00/hour warehouse supervisor really need a 4-year degree?)  The glut of people with degrees, especially less than applicable ones to real life, is resulting in a situation where employers (at least up here) can set unreasonable standards for those they hire.  It is a self-perpetuating vicious circle.

* I suspect, if asked, he would indicate that it is which ever distraction subject he has currently been proven the least wrong about.
** It's sounds naughty but it's not.****
*** Also because I'm just cool that way.
****Unless I enjoy it.
*****Notice the clever correlation to several parts of the earlier discussion regarding taxing the rich and social programs.

agentwhale007 wrote: Of FE's list, I only really object to two of them, the gun regulations

Wait, your pro gun control?

Do you believe people should be able to carry a firearm for self defense?

Do you believe people should be able to own evil looking black rifles?

Do you believe people should be able to carry on campus?

Do you believe people should be able to own fully auto firearms?

Do you believe people need to have a permit to buy or carry a firearm?

Do you believe there should be a national registration of firearms?

I wasn't the one this was directed at . . . but I've never let that stop me before.

impulse418 wrote: Do you believe people should be able to carry a firearm for self defense? Yes Do you believe people should be able to own evil looking black rifles? Yes Do you believe people should be able to carry on campus? As a private organization, responsible for the safety of a great many students (some of which reside in dormitories provided by the organization), I believe the call on this should be left up to the organization itself.  Students who don't like the school's policy, whatever it may be are free to go somewhere else. State schools are a bit harder to decide upon than private institutions, for a myriad of reasons,  but I lean towards a yes there.  I don't believe weapons should be allowed in dormitories/living quarters of any school. Do you believe people should be able to own fully auto firearms? Yes, but I have no problem with background checks or registrations for these. Do you believe people need to have a permit to buy or carry a firearm? No to buying; as long as there is no criminal record that would prevent purchase.  Yes to carrying; as long as the intent of the permit is to ensure training on safety and usage rather than to just prevent ownership/carrying. Do you believe there should be a national registration of firearms? Yes, but only for more dangerous ones or accessories.  (Fully automatic weapons and silencers would be examples.)

Edited by Mack - 29 April 2011 at 3:56pm

agentwhale007 wrote: impulse418 wrote: Do you believe people should be able to carry a firearm for self defense? Do you believe people should be able to own evil looking black rifles? Do you believe people should be able to carry on campus? Do you believe people should be able to own fully auto firearms? Do you believe people need to have a permit to buy or carry a firearm? Do you believe there should be a national registration of firearms? Yes. Although I think the times when firearms actually come in handy are extraordinarily slim, the right should still exist, for sure. Open carry and concealed are both fine with me. If you're talking about the Brady Bill and such that tend to be more about cosmetics, yes, those are silly and don't do anything. It's a feel-good legislation. No. With licensing and permits, yes. Buy, no. Carry, yes. As long as the permit system isn't cost prohibited. I go back and forth on that one. Don't really have a set opinion.

Why no on campus carry? If someone wants to go on a mass shooting, where do they go? Schools

impulse418 wrote: Why no on campus carry?

Too many generally immature people crowded into a very small area.

If someone wants to go on a mass shooting, where do they go? Schools

The reasons for school shootings usually have nothing to do with any sort of predetermined concept of "They won't fight back." At least from the psychological studies looking into school shootings.

impulse418 wrote: How about mass shootings in malls that are posted no weapons?

So you're proposing that someone planning a mass-shooting chooses their location based on the presence of firearms?

Mack wrote: impulse418 wrote: A suppressor makes a firearm more dangerous? I think lowering the chance of hearing damage would make it safer... It makes the potential damage from misuse significantly worse.  I.e. It gives a nutter the capability to take out a few people without the loud reports from the gun as a warning to others that it is time to be elsewhere So due to a few bad seeds, all law abiding citizens have to suffer the consequence? I really think if a nutter wanted a suppressor, he would just google how to make it. It is not that hard. But we law abiding citizens don't want to go to prison. But the "nutters" are usually just lazy. Jared Loughner didn't even practice with his glock, and don't think he cared about a suppressor. agentwhale007 wrote: Mack wrote: I don't believe weapons should be allowed in dormitories/living quarters of any school. That's generally the reason that public schools maintain a weapons ban, because if you open it up to the campus, then the dorms become a part of that physical boundary, and the question becomes "Well if guns are allowed on the campus, why not the dorm, as they're on the campus?" But yeah, we pretty much agree on the gun thing. Hooray agreement! Hooray Yes, immature people, alcohol (a common campus weekend staple - or so I am told) and guns have the potential to be a very bad mix. But to legally drink, one must be 21 years old. The same age one must be to buy from a FFL, and to have a CCW in communist states. So we think they are mature enough to drink, buy a firearm, and carry one off campus. But as soon as you put them on campus, they turn into retards?

agentwhale007 wrote: impulse418 wrote: So we think they are mature enough to drink, buy a firearm, and carry one off campus. But as soon as you put them on campus, they turn into retards? Pretty much.

Strange. Utah has campus carry. Seems to be working for them. Are things different at colleges east of the Mississippi?