|
Curvature of Earth posted:Ohio State University or Oregon State University? Objectivist
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
EndOfTheWorld posted:Only Collectivist Statist Socialists speak in terms of "organs" and "the body as a whole." I respect the autonomy of the individual cell! Who are we to tell that little bugger he can't reproduce indefinitely and homestead other organs? I mean they've mixed their labor with his tissues by releasing vascularization factors, aggressing against them would be immoral.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Objectivist I think you mean Objectivist Private University.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:I think you mean Objectivist Private University. Ah, good Ol' P.U. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deN-G_fjsXw&t=42s
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Ah, good Ol' P.U. 1942, a good year for looney tunes. A terrible year for- well everything else on the planet.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Let's revive fauxtesting at OSU.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Let's revive fauxtesting at OSU. Already a thing in my Econ class where the TA email us the grade scale. Want a C? Only gotta get a 50% in the class. Want a B? Gotta get an 87% I got an 84 and a B-
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
thanks NANNY STATE
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:thanks NANNY STATE Tbh I'm just pissed at my TA. To get an A you needed a 96 because he said "only the upper 10% of the class can receive an A
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Tbh I'm just pissed at my TA. To get an A you needed a 96 because he said "only the upper 10% of the class can receive an A So what happens if everyone has the exact same grade at the end of the year?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So what happens if everyone has the exact same grade at the end of the year? That's why grading on a curve or putting students in competition with each other is inherently stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's why grading on a curve or putting students in competition with each other is inherently stupid. I was lucky enough to never actually have any teachers that graded on a curve, so I'm still not sure 100% how it even works and I feel like I'm a better person for it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I was lucky enough to never actually have any teachers that graded on a curve, so I'm still not sure 100% how it even works and I feel like I'm a better person for it. When I was still a TA I got told to curve a few exams, but that happened largely as the professor in question hadn't taught a survey course in like 30 years and had written the tests with far higher expectations than was appropriate. Under normal circumstances I'm in agreement that curving is a dumb idea.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I was lucky enough to never actually have any teachers that graded on a curve, so I'm still not sure 100% how it even works and I feel like I'm a better person for it. Basically it's grading on a bell curve. The highest score gets an A, the lowest an F, no matter what the grades overall are. Then you just fill in the middle so it looks like a bell curve and the middle is full of C's. It's stupid because if you have 100 students who all deserve A's based on their work you absolutely must fail a certain number of them. The other definition of "curve" is for... Captain_Maclaine posted:When I was still a TA I got told to curve a few exams, but that happened largely as the professor in question hadn't taught a survey course in like 30 years and had written the tests with far higher expectations than was appropriate. Under normal circumstances I'm in agreement that curving is a dumb idea. stuff like that. That isn't grading on a curve that's curving the grades, which makes sense in certain situations. I'm sure I was in at least one class that was curved but wasn't graded on a curve. Sometimes the professor makes a mistake and the grades get all out of whack; other times the professor doesn't have a drat clue how to make fair tests and says "OK, top person is 100%, calculate from there" or whatever. In that example it sounded like everybody was really struggling (it was a pretty hard math class anyway). That makes sense sometimes because, you know, professors are only human and everybody fucks up sometimes. If your class's highest grade is 82% and other than that you have 3 C's and half the class is failing it's time to nudge the numbers a bit because you probably did something wrong. I don't think any professors where I went to school ever grade on a curve. The only time I ever heard it brought up was when a professor said "grading on a curve is stupid."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Look, if you guys want to talk about bell curves, all I'm saying is you're in the right thread.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Grading on a curve is stupid because the entire purpose of testing and grades is to assess mastery of the subject area. Like, this is often overlooked because testing and grading is portrayed to nearly everyone as a good in itself, but if you're creating a system where a collective agreement to not give a poo poo about the topic is the best route towards spreading out grades - and possibly threatening the bright young people who are working hard and cracking the books... well, you're certainly teaching skills relevant to modern life and the workplace but not the topic the class is about, I'm pretty sure. "Nerd" is folk-etymologied to come from "Knurd," which is what they called the sober students (the reverse of drunk, you see). Now that's for overall class grades, doing something like 'here's a hard test but you'll be curved' makes sense, although if you do get some rare bird who scores 97% when you expected a top score of 80% or so, it is merciful to use the second highest score for this purpose and note that rare bird as exceptional.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Every degree-relevant class professor I had at university (in an already difficult engineering degree) curved grades. The only professors who graded on a curve were a few required-courses humanities professors. Literally had one walk in on the first day and say, "Nobody gets a 100 in my class. 100 means perfect, and you are not perfect; nobody is perfect." Even if someone managed a 100, he would find some error, no matter how innocuous or irrelevant to the subject, and dock points. I saw people lose points because their names weren't written "perfectly". Though one of my favorite classes in college was a required humanities elective where the professor basically said "if you want 100 in my class, show up and be prepared to talk about what was on the news last night or in the papers this morning." Awesome professor, roped me into being an impromptu French representative of the Model UN one weekend (only one in T-shirt and shorts), and made me wish I had gotten into the club before my last year at college.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
The standard method in my field is to make the test unreasonably hard and then curve it back into reasonableness, because we get swamped with hyper-studious pre-meds and the professors hate seeing the bell curve bunching up on one end. Coordination to game the curve doesn't work, because pre-meds are backstabbing motherfuckers who will do absolutely anything to gain a comparative advantage on a med school application. Sitting in on an undergrad class as a TA allowed me to watch a bunch of 19-year-olds work out the prisoner's dilemma in their heads in real time, and every single one of them smashed the "betray" button as hard as they could.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Why would you ever tell them that there's a curve, though.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:The standard method in my field is to make the test unreasonably hard and then curve it back into reasonableness, because we get swamped with hyper-studious pre-meds and the professors hate seeing the bell curve bunching up on one end. Coordination to game the curve doesn't work, because pre-meds are backstabbing motherfuckers who will do absolutely anything to gain a comparative advantage on a med school application. Sitting in on an undergrad class as a TA allowed me to watch a bunch of 19-year-olds work out the prisoner's dilemma in their heads in real time, and every single one of them smashed the "betray" button as hard as they could. I like how American medical school seems deliberately geared toward the biggest bastards exceeding at the expense of actual nice people. That's exactly who I want to be my doctor; somebody who would happily and deliberately sabotage people that are potentially their future colleagues and coworkers.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I like how American medical school seems deliberately geared toward the biggest bastards exceeding at the expense of actual nice people. Survival of the fittest. Are you saying you don't want the fittest doctor serving you???
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Survival of the fittest. Are you saying you don't want the fittest doctor serving you??? Quite frankly I don't care if he was last in his class or first so long as he's competent. If you grabbed the 100 best doctors in the world one of them is the worst doctor of that bunch but that doesn't mean he's a lovely doctor.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I like how American medical school seems deliberately geared toward the biggest bastards exceeding at the expense of actual nice people. It's wild that a group of extremely wealthy Americans tend to institutionalize the most sociopathic and anti-social aspects of capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
An artificial doctor shortage created by a private organization in order to keep medical wages high? Impossible, you're all spinning tall tales
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:An artificial doctor shortage created by a private organization in order to keep medical wages high? Impossible, you're all spinning tall tales But we can't put regulations in place to fix that problem. That would be tyranny and communism! But I repeat myself.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 09:55
|
|
|
Man, you Americans have got this allllll backwards. What you want to do is underpay the doctors in your country so that recruitment rates drop, then poach less well-paid doctors from former colonies! I'm sure those doctors aren't needed in those countries anyway, and if they were they should have paid appropriately according to the Free Market!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Man, you Americans have got this allllll backwards. What you want to do is underpay the doctors in your country so that recruitment rates drop, then poach less well-paid doctors from former colonies! I'm sure those doctors aren't needed in those countries anyway, and if they were they should have paid appropriately according to the Free Market! No no no, what you need to do is tell women they're "naturally suited" to a caring job like medical doctor, then once the majority of doctors are women, drastically underpay the entire field because it's filthy women's work. The free market is a rational force with no prejudices. By definition, there can't be a doctor "shortage" and they can't be "underpaid"—that's just the invisible hand you're seeing!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
I'm a former libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, and I've been wondering on a question I never really confronted back then: Let's say you've invited someone to your house. You then lock the door and tell them they can't leave. ... By what right can they damage your property to leave? You aren't harming them or their property directly, simply their freedom of movement, which is a major part of what property even is. Now, sane people might say that the government/society/etc. will have rules and can control what you do with your property in this case, but let's try to think objectively here. If they break the door, do they have to pay damages? Can you retaliate against them for destruction of property? If you say "There is a small pipe just big enough for you to crawl half a mile through poo poo to leave," is that enough to say the person isn't being held against their will? If not, then where is the objective line? If there is a puddle outside the front door, does that count as making it not a viable escape? If freedom of escape is universal, then do they have an obligation to take the least damaging path? Or can I always do what I want to escape someone's property? If it's not legal at all in a libertarian system to prevent someone from leaving property, then how would private jails work? Though we're dipping into minarchist vs anarchist territory there, and a lot of libertarians wouldn't be for that. But the question is still valid, since it's a logical extension. I'm honestly shocked with myself that I never thought about this issue back then. But maybe that's part of why I'm a former ancap.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I'm a former libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, and I've been wondering on a question I never really confronted back then: 什麼什麼 contracts... 什麼什麼 private property rights... Caros will probably be the guy to lay it out perfectly, but I think the biggest question you need to ask before we can run this scenario is, "Is the person being held a minority?"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I'm a former libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, and I've been wondering on a question I never really confronted back then: Congratulations, you've identified another of the many reasons why ancap bullshit is just a disguised hankering for the return of feudalism.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
In star trek a standard thing upon entering someone's house is to welcome them with your household's visitor waiver form which they have to sign to legally enter your house. Also weren't some libertarian dudes basically saying if a woman willingly enters your property you're 100% ok to rape her because something something property rights? Also trapping someone somewhere would violate the NAP thus would never happen. If something like that did happen though, the person imprisoned would simply contact what ever DRO they have a contract with who would deliver a letter to the house requesting you to be let out. If the owner does no consent to rejoinder there may be a problem. Basically always pack a lot of food with you because you never know when you'll be imprisoned while on private property and have no right to violate someone else's property as a guest. Did you see a sign when entering the property saying you would not be imprisoned? Where's the contract saying you have a right to leave the property for free? You consented to enter the property, which means you consent to any and all rules while on that property. Anything less would be communism and slavery. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 16:09 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
I dunno, sounds like the host did an aggression, so all bets are off. You could've been offered a million
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Golbez posted:I'm a former libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, and I've been wondering on a question I never really confronted back then: That's kidnapping, so you leave as peaceably as you can but you are definitely leaving. Prisoners are legally detained in the U.S. because the Fifth Amendment allows the removal of rights after trial.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 17:34
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:That's kidnapping, so you leave as peaceably as you can but you are definitely leaving. Prisoners are legally detained in the U.S. because the Fifth Amendment allows the removal of rights after trial. When does it become kidnapping? When they lock all the doors? When they lock the most convenient door but allow egress through another? When they lock all the doors except the most inconvenient one? Or is it only when they physically restrain the person? Libertarians, my former self included, pride themselves on simple, logical answers, so there must be a simple, logical answer. Or is it more complex than that? Are there actual limits to property rights, and is the nature of "aggression" more nuanced than the NAP gives it credit? Stinky_Pete posted:I dunno, sounds like the host did an aggression, so all bets are off. You could've been offered a million I recall some ancaps arguing that police should be able to do illegal searches and that the fruit of the poisoned tree should be accepted as evidence, if the police department/private security company/whatever compensated people for the trespass on their property. So they might argue it's not legal or illegal to break the door to get out, as long as you pay for it. Baronjutter posted:In star trek a standard thing upon entering someone's house is to welcome them with your household's visitor waiver form which they have to sign to legally enter your house. When did this happen on Star Trek, let alone there even being a house on Star Trek?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Golbez posted:When did this happen on Star Trek, let alone there even being a house on Star Trek? Also, where outside of Star Trek are there residential doors whose locks can only be operated by the owner? Golbez posted:Libertarians, my former self included, pride themselves on simple, logical answers, so there must be a simple, logical answer. Or is it more complex than that? Are there actual limits to property rights, and is the nature of "aggression" more nuanced than the NAP gives it credit? I get the impression that libertarians end up deciding reasonable exceptions or context-sensitive markers or concepts to codify the calculus of aggression, but they basically just end up (poorly) re-inventing the common law that's been developed by Anglo-French courts over a period of centuries. It's how we got concepts such as the "attractive nuisance," which puts the onus on owners of e.g. dangerous/unstable structures that look like an awesome playground to a child, to bar entrance in some way. Or if you're a restaurant owner taking up a slot in a place that is conveniently located for commerce, you are providing a "public accommodation" that has to meet certain expectations which would otherwise have to be negotiated with, or explained to, each individual customer before they enter for the NAP to work. Like, we have building codes in order to guarantee certain characteristics of any building you walk into, because the amount of time and energy required to independently assess your probability of injury due to shoddy carpentry is absurd and not conducive to a functioning market. We figured all this out a long time ago, but libertarians insist on starting from scratch.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Golbez posted:When did this happen on Star Trek, let alone there even being a house on Star Trek? I'm going to assume we're referring to Ferengi.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:That's kidnapping, so you leave as peaceably as you can but you are definitely leaving. Prisoners are legally detained in the U.S. because the Fifth Amendment allows the removal of rights after trial. It's false imprisonment. You need to forcibly or coercively move someone for a kidnapping.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:什麼什麼 contracts... 什麼什麼 private property rights... Well, you see, you're allowed to carry a gun and defend yourself against unlawful, forceful detention and captivity! Oh, wait...minority, never mind, then it's your singular claim of self-defense against the anger of a whole community. Though, in fairness, I think that an-caps would probably experience that situation in their little society, too. Sweet irony, bleating about the NAP and how they were justified in self-defense and here's a bunch of logic arguments so please don't put the yoke on, oh god no, I'm an intellectual visionary and real philosopher, not some crude plowhorse, and why do I have to wear this ball ga-*mmph*!? I think an-caps are a bit too trusting in their cynical, latent racism working in their favor. Like, yes, you might be white like me, but you're like an annoying yapping dog (not allowed in MY community!), so into the chattel pens with you. It's a very unsafe and unfounded assumption, at least for the more racially vocal an-caps, to think that racial commonality will outweigh the allure of autocratic power and rampant barbarism. The Humungus might see you as a nuisance, out of anti-intellectualism, and do away with an-cap you for that reason. Or he (probably always going to be a "he" in this scenario) might be a bit more intellectual himself, and judge an-cap philosophy to be dangerous to his position as a glorious emperor, and do away with you as an example. I guess this is a Hobbesian view I'm suggesting (and I should probably read Hobbes)? I guess my point is, if an-caps are arguing for removing the bounds and restraints and inviting backsliding, they shouldn't be surprised when it blows up in their faces once someone more extreme realizes their individual potential (or psychosis) and does away with all the intellectual trappings of an-cap philosophy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Libertarians, my former self included, pride themselves on simple, logical answers, so there must be a simple, logical answer. Neither of them are good answers but they exist. Golbez posted:Or is it more complex than that? Are there actual limits to property rights, and is the nature of "aggression" more nuanced than the NAP gives it credit?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
David French, National Review's resident scold and frth-spitter, has been broken by the Ascension of God-Emperor Trump upon the defeat of the Ted Cruz Heresy. Broken libertarian. quote:Now is an ideal time for the Libertarian Party to get its act together and nominate a truly serious candidate — a person who may not meet the party’s typical purity tests but who can at least make a serious argument and advance a range of policies that unite both conservatives and libertarians. Reminder French opposes Griswold V. Connecticut. Yes, a loon that rails against available contraception now suddenly embrace freedom!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 21:32
|
|