Fergurg's page

Since you are going to implement a policy that says that any “transphobic” statements are going to be met with a permanent ban, can we get a clear cut definition of what will be regarded as “transphobic”?

I need to know, explicitly, where the line is in order to decide whether or not I wish to stay.

Here’s the bottom line. The people who would be upset by a light-hearted take are probably harboring resentment for this AP existing because it has a positive display of police.

Everybody has already made up their mind on that topic, and I don’t see how a livestream would affect anyone’s views. Everybody who would take offense already has.

Here's my idea: reverse the penalties for lethal vs nonlethal damage.

I remember back when pro wrestler CM Punk tried to get into MMA. The biggest difficulty was that he was trained, and became very good at, executing moves and maneuvers that look damaging, but not really hurting his "opponent". Those instincts kept kicking in, and it ultimately hindered him when in an environment where he was trying to hurt his opponent.

It would not be unreasonable to presume that the same would apply here.

As I said in the original statement, that's a perspective rooted in privilege, and is at the root of my own blind spot with this campaign. I figured that our conscientious and kind staff would simply work around the problem, without realizing that the issue at its core was the problem.

Here is where I am confused. If the issue is that the very idea of PC police is objectionable to the point that this AP should not have been made, why is it still being released? There is still time to not release it. Yes, it would hurt the bottom line, but is that really any worse than releasing a product that you have stated was offensive and feel the need to apologize for? (And there is the very real possibility that there are people who would pay for you to not release it)

Jeff Alvarez wrote:

We are holding our statement for Monday...

There ya go. This comment should “cool” the thread at least until sometime on Monday.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/SeCr9f0I2Ay1W/giphy.gif?cid=549b592d5bb502ed 4e514f3377fa1ce0

Am I the only one who is thinking this is starting to sound a whole lot like Video games glorify/encourage violence kind of territory?

Starting to?

(erased)

There’s some folks trying to guess at my reasoning for titling the thread the way I did. Let me clarify:

Quote:

Is now a good time for Agents of Edgewatch?

Gestures broadly at the recent global protests against police brutality

Quote:

Is Ever?

These protests brought attention the world over to deeply endemic issues in society, issues that either people were ignorant of, knew but thought were minor enough to ignore, or even felt powerless to speak up against.

One of the issues is the topic of Copaganda, where television, books and art depict even corrupt cops as possessing underlying heroism. Let’s take my favorite current “good cop” show, Brooklyn 99. Even those cops, with issues highlighting race problems and possessing above average human decency and empathy do bad, outright illegal things.

(cut for time)

I am no longer comfortable watching shows about police, because entertainment is meant to be an empathy device, and I no longer trust the authorities to act legally, let alone morally.

That is your view; I don't have that view.

I and many others are uncomfortable with an interactive game, where cops can act like Player Characters in a tactical combat RPG like Pathfinder. Being complicit in creating the kinds of stories that allow society to become complacent enough to cheer on cops no matter what they do.

So it seems, and feel free to correct me if I am in error here, is that NOBODY should be allowed to play a campaign where the cops are the good guys.

One rule of life that I follow is to not act upon borrowed convictions. Why should I not get to play Agents of Edgewall because you don't like the police?

Pulling it right now, the absolute worst time to release an adventure like this, would not be a bad precedent.

That second part is a slippery slope fallacy, an illegitimate claim (and in bad taste with those "" if im being honest) to detract from the issue.

It is a slippery slope, but not a fallacy. It isn't a distraction from the issue; it is the issue. If you feel it's not a fallacy, then let me ask you this: how is it incorrect? Where does it stop - and how would it be stopped?

As for the quotes, I am quoting a specific phrase used by many people as justification for silencing things.

I wonder how much of this is because in most campaigns, the town guards are powerless to stop the bad guys and it's up to the PCs to handle the situation as people with neither legal authority nor the restrictions as that legal authority. Now the PCs are the town guards, which means that in theory, the town guards ARE powerful enough to deal with the bad guys. But are they going to act as the law or as PCs tend to act in other circumstances?

More importantly, cancelling this product because of current events sets a bad precedent; namely the idea that product development must take into account events that haven't happened yet and are unforeseen in order to avoid "being on the wrong side of history".

Fumarole wrote:

- snipped to the part I want to respond to -

Making changes to the game is fine if that's what a GM finds suitable, but it may not be necessary if the GM and players communicate to set expectations with each other. I guess I may be guilty of assuming that all GMS do this because it's something I've done for a long while.

I do session zeros as well and use a similar approach, but it can be hard to hit on really specific points like this without spoiling things. It might be that in this particular case spoiling things might be the best solution. I'm pretty sure the player's guide mentions the Mwangi Expanse or at least globe trotting, so it might not even be that much of a...

That won't solve the actual problem. We could debate in the abstract all day about whether it is a racist caricature or how your black players might feel about it, but it really doesn't matter - because YOU, the GM, have a problem using it. So the solution is not use them.

You have a sensitivity to this and really, even if it wouldn't phase your players, it will bother you. You are a part of the group of people at the table, which means that there is one person you KNOW is not going to be OK with it. And since you're the GM, you can take it out without having to spoil anything.

thejeff wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

1. Someone brought up a remotely close to right wing point. If I know my Paizo forums, that means this thread is destined for lock down in a page or so. No right wing opinions allowed here, unless they're purely economic in nature. (I'm a straight centrist independent, with rather across the board opinions that jump sides depending on specifics, but it doesn't mean I'm not blind to blatant favoritism.)

Wait. A right wing point. And I missed it. Attack!!!

Or did you mean the evolution thing? A couple people, including me, commented, there was a lot of jokes about eating dinosaurs and it seems to have blown over.

I suppose we could argue about Paizo's supposed favoritism, if you'd like.

I figure it was more of a general thing. When someone expresses any opinion that's even vaguely right of center, a dozen posters will jump all over them. If they bother to respond to support their opinions, one of the Paizo mods generically comes to lock that thread down.

The reason I give my right wing fundamentalist Christian views here is not to try to persuade anyone who won't agree with me anyway; it's to let those who do agree with me know that they're not alone.

I don't like Wake of the Watcher, so I plan to take it out. Was thinking of replacing it with Seven Days to the Grave putting it in a significant city. Should I put it back in Lepistadt or in an entirely new city?

Of course I also have to figure out why the Whispering Way is spreading a plague...

I'm wondering once the PC have cleared out Harrowstone. I'm thinking of having the town council possibly gifting the prison to the PCs. It seems like a waste for such a place to be left abandoned.

Not sure it'd be a gift so much as a sequel in the making; there might be other prisoners' ghosts to deal with.

"That Gen Con is so dedicated to fostering one big welcoming gamer community" as long as you think the right thoughts.

Most of the vocal supporters of Gen Con's statement outright said that they wanted to drive out those who don't support "marriage equality". So you'll have to excuse my cynicism whenever someone wants to compel someone else into performing a business transaction by threat of force (which all laws ultimately are) and calls that "inclusiveness".

Fergurg wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lord Snow wrote:

What I said was entirely within the realm of practicality. Making laws for polygamous marriage is not impossible (obviously) merely hard. I used my examples to illustrate this. It would probably take a lot of precious time and other resources for such laws to be passed, and there aren't really any groups that have sufficient political power to pressurize anyone into passing these laws, so other ones are going to take priority over them.

So, not saying that it shouldn't happen or even that it wouldn't eventually. Just not in the foreseeable future.

Pretty much this. It's not really that it's more complicated legally, though that will affect things.

It's that the law doesn't work that way, even if it should. This decision or the decisions and laws that originally changed state policies on gay marriage don't set up a slope where poly marriage is the next step. That's been a standard attack on marriage equality from the beginning.

If poly marriage is going to happen, it's going to happen because there's a constituency that both demands it, has the legal clout and resources to push lawmakers and courts in that direction and, more importantly, is able to change broad public opinion in it's favor. The courts will follow public opinion. Just like they did with same sex marriage.

But the whole point of the courts is they are supposed to NOT follow public opinion. Their purpose is to arbitrate the law as it is, not as 50.1% want it to be.

You mean like prop 8 was?

You mean when the state attorney general refused to defend it in court because he felt that the people were wrong, or are you referring to the fact that the judge, by his own finding, should have removed himself from the case?

Lord Snow wrote:

What I said was entirely within the realm of practicality. Making laws for polygamous marriage is not impossible (obviously) merely hard. I used my examples to illustrate this. It would probably take a lot of precious time and other resources for such laws to be passed, and there aren't really any groups that have sufficient political power to pressurize anyone into passing these laws, so other ones are going to take priority over them.

So, not saying that it shouldn't happen or even that it wouldn't eventually. Just not in the foreseeable future.

Pretty much this. It's not really that it's more complicated legally, though that will affect things.

It's that the law doesn't work that way, even if it should. This decision or the decisions and laws that originally changed state policies on gay marriage don't set up a slope where poly marriage is the next step. That's been a standard attack on marriage equality from the beginning.

If poly marriage is going to happen, it's going to happen because there's a constituency that both demands it, has the legal clout and resources to push lawmakers and courts in that direction and, more importantly, is able to change broad public opinion in it's favor. The courts will follow public opinion. Just like they did with same sex marriage.

But the whole point of the courts is they are supposed to NOT follow public opinion. Their purpose is to arbitrate the law as it is, not as 50.1% want it to be.

Because, frankly, this hobby needs more people that think like me!

I'd like to think that Pharasma's view of destiny and fate is not tied into one's physical appearance in the slightest. I can see some Pharasmins taking that tact, though.

Not just appearance, but how the body is physically constructed. Is that supposed to be a sign of your fate, or something you fight against in order to find your fate? Or for that matter, could this tie into Zyphus's teachings about randomness and no particular fate?

It seems I may have to retract what I said a couple years ago - including these themes can make the game more interesting; you just have to be willing to accept the "different world, different morals" motto.

124. When you hit bottom, they were the people who made sure that you stopped digging. Now, they need you. They didn't abandon you - how can you abandon them?

9. Because I run a 25 minute mile - it was learn magic or start feeding toddlers to the monsters that keep attacking my village.

10. I was born a woman but always wanted to be a man. Not look like a man, not be treated like a man, actually be a man. This requires expensive magic and it's cheaper to learn it than to pay someone else to do it.

The Alkenstarian wrote:

Oh no, the dread gazebo! Phear it, everyone, PHEAR it!!

192: use bite attacks on wooden gynosphinxes, then complain about splinters in one's tongue and get IC testy when the other characters joke about eating the ... well ... cat.

Somehow I don't see "<5-letter profane word for the vagina, equivalent to house in this context> cat" as describing a gynosphinx.

Clearly you've been looking at the wrong gynosphinges.

Completely on accident on my part. 1996, I was running a Marvel Super-Heroes game. Was setting up for the team to meet at a pawn shop at midnight. I improvised the name as Qwicky Cash Pawn Shop. Worse, they asked me what was on the sign, so I improvised that it had the slogan "Come in For Your Quicky". I was trying to show that the place was run down so the last word was torn off.

I was literally the last person at the table to realize what I said.

Replaced with, "did you directly witness a crime being committed and can that be verified with your body camera?" If no, then you are not permitted to chase or detain.

That standard literally legalizes every single rape and murder that the cop does not happen to come across.

You and who's smurfing army, Pulg? You smurf-headed smurf lover.

Smurf, this smurfing thread is a smurf-load of smurfing fun.

And to think you smurf your mother with that mouth!

prophesized

According to Bryan Adams, the singer of the 80's tune "Summer of 69", the song is about the summer he lost his virginity, and no, the name is not because it happened in 1969.

TL;DR down with the gender binary

You would need to redefine nature. Good luck with that.

So if someone is a sexist piece of s!!%, they spread their legs on the subway to hurt women? Even if sitting beside men? Even if they are big enough that sitting normally on the tiny seats is a problem for them? I don't understand how that follows...

careful ... you're manterrogating. <snicker>

Sissyl wrote:

Besides, I liked sleep manpnea.

La Principessa snores much louder than I.

But, then again, I apparently manterrupt her quite a bit.

I'm working on it.

Clearly, you only noticed because you don't like the idea of a woman being heard.</ripped-off snark>

Brox RedGloves wrote:

Fergie wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Yeah, hiding this now. Some of this crap being bandied about is disgusting.

Honestly curious about this one...

National Review is about the lowest level of "journalism" you can get, and various 'isms are just beneath the surface. It gives me a good perspective on the ideas of people who read/post links to it however.

Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.

Wait... You mean someone took that article seriously?!

Ann Coulter made an amusing claim in her book, "Godless", which I'm going to misquote because I haven't read it in almost 10 years, but it goes something like this: liberalism's greatest achievement is its inability to be made fun of. No matter how ridiculous and over-the-top you try to satirize it, there are going to be liberals who will, or already have, seriously proposed your satire and genuinely believe in it.

Brox RedGloves wrote:

Of you could just try reading the article linked and realize it is written with tongue firmly in cheek.

I did read it. The joke is that women (feminists) are just upset over silly stuff that is really trivial. See girls, boys will be boys, don't get all b~%+*y about it.

If you can't see that feminists' claims about men "manspreading" being a show of dominance is ridiculous on its face, then you're part of the problem.

Go with the flow, smile, and don't forget your rape whistle!

Most right-wingers openly mock the idea of a rape whistle; we encourage women to carry guns instead.

I'm all for some good humor, and enjoys some very non-PC stuff, but when you are the dominate group, you have to try harder then having the underlying theme be: just suck it up and deal with it. If the article is 10 ways whites oppress blacks, it is going to require different jokes then 10 ways blacks oppress whites. The Onion is good at this, the National Review comes off as A-holes.

Sidenote: I have no idea what "manspreading" really has to do with feminism, (and I'm not that interested) as it is a silly term from a NYC transportation advertisement group that has done a really bad job in the past, and in my opinion is a total waste of tax money.<snipped rest, as I'm not addressing it>

You might not be interested in feminism and "manspreading", but since you brought it up, I'll talk about it anyway. Many, MANY feminists are claiming that men not sitting with their legs together is intended as a sign of male dominance. Seriously, this argument even came out on this very thread a few pages ago.

Bringing it back to a more general oppression:

10 Ways men oppress women every day

Considering what rape victims, either female or male, are subjected to when they make an accusation of this nature, and the way that nearly everyone, as observed in this thread, bend over backwards to defend the accused, just having the courage to come forward with an accusation is a bit of a point in favor of the credibility of the statements.

My principle is to believe the victim unless a reason is apparent that they should not be believed. Cosby doesn't lose much by me refusing to watch his shows, buy his albums, or buy jello pudding pops, mostly because I already didn't. I'm not going to be on the jury, and the most harm (if it is harm) I'll do is that I might convince someone who isn't currently convinced one way or another.

There is no virtue in refraining from judgement in a matter like this, except insofar as you are involved in law enforcement or legal proceedings associated with the matter. Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b!+@+es to be lying until proven truthful.

Not buying his products isn't convicting him of a crime. Organizing a boycott isn't convicting him of a crime.

As for the argument that these women are trying to cash in by accusing a celebrity, there are thousands of rich men out there. Very few of them have 33 people accusing them of rape. Even if you bring race into it, which, I must acknowledge, is a fraught situation with a history of false rape accusations by white women against black men, there are still thousands of rich black men out there, very few of which have 33 people accusing them of rape.

I get to say, I think he's a rapist. I get to say, I believe these women. People insisting that we can't make any judgement are verging on rape apology, in my opinion.

You make me sick and here is why! Rolling Stone magazine recently got caught in a case of "always believing the victim". Lena Dunham is being sued because she is claiming that a specific person raped her, in her autobiography. Then there's the Duke lacrosse team, where the players were proven innocent of rape (and in fact, one of them wasn't even there), and people STILL want criminal convictions.

But I don't have to look to the news to find someone falsely accused; I only need to go to a mirror. The "victim" lied. The "victim" admitted to lying in court. Yet enough people decided to take the "always believe the victim" stance, and it harms me to this day. I lost friends and family over a false accusation.

So get off your f%^(!@g high horse about how people falsely accused don't suffer harm, because I know from personal experience what BS that is!

Quantity has a quality of its own.

Wasn't there a certain city in Massachusetts that went with that theory? Back around the late 1600s?

The easternmost state in the United States is not Maine, as commonly shown on maps; it's Alaska. Part of the Kodiak Islands cross the barrier between hemispheres, putting that part in the eastern hemisphere.

Freehold DM wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Since you actually seem to be serious about this:

Do you really apply this in everyday life? Do you really think everyone should as a general rule?
Think nothing bad of anyone or take any actions based on such opinions without an actual jury trial?
If, for example, you'd heard these stories much earlier, would you advise a female friend to be careful about being in private with Mr. Cosby or tell her to go right ahead, since he was innocent, not having been found guilty by a jury?
It's a wonderful principle for criminal prosecution. It's a horribly stupid one for everyday life.

given the history of black men in this country being brutally killed without ever seeing the inside of a court room after being accused of raping/looking at/whistling at a white woman, I strongly believe that an impartial legal system should be involved and their decision should be respected, guilty or innocent.

I would strongly recommend that got amend your statement with respect to "taking action based on opinion without a jury trial"- you have essentially given a thumbs up to lynching.

That was far from my intention, which I thought would be clear from the example question or the "think bad of anyone" part.

By actions, I meant things that had previously been discussed here like boycotts. Not taking the law into my own hands.
If that wasn't clear, I'm sorry.

I think the general question still stands though: Does one have an obligation to retain his previous opinion and any previous financial patronage of, or personal associations with, someone accused of crimes, until and unless those crimes are proven in a court of law?

If one friend of your was accused of rape by another, would you feel obligated to stand by the accused until and unless he was proven guilty, even if the accuser's story was persuasive?

As someone who HAS been falsely accused, I would. But then again, I'm biased, as I have first-hand knowledge of how others believing a false accusation can ruin someone's life.

Judge it how you want. I have no interest in discussing it with you further. I'm under no obligation to discuss it, nor defend it.

You brought it up. You were trying to prove a point, which is why you brought it up. Do you have a legal obligation to explain what you are talking about? No. But you do have a "not an a-hole" obligation to explain what you are talking about when someone specifically asks for an explanation about a subject you brought up.

I'm sorry, I got it wrong. So far his defense has been to..

1) Say nothing
2) Settle out of court

So no, we haven't heard his side of the story. Watching the AP interview from early November, he seems to be employing the strategy of non-engagement and hoping it goes away.

That means the ONLY evidence we have right now is the claims of these 33 women. We have their word on this, including the fact that 13 of them were willing to testify in court as witnesses, even though they had no connection to the suit, nor would they gain from it monetarily.

There has literally been no evidence presented that would point towards his innocence.

I'm willing to hear his defense, but that means he has to put one forward.

An accusation is not evidence, so we don't have any evidence at all; only assertions made.

Fergurg wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

I have a similar issue revolving around gamergate. The CEO of a company I have previous bought things from said some things I found shocking. He was purposely using his standing as a CEO of a company to say things that I didn't just disagree with, but I found to be repugnant. I'm not spending my money on their products any more. There are enough other games where I can play them without thinking about providing him financial support, that I see no reason to give him my money any more. I was a big fan of that company too, one game I had bought three retail versions (two so I could run both machines online and a third as a gift). I bought a collectors edition of another at $100. I'm done now as a customer, because he decided to use his company as a platform to express disgusting views.

I'll bite. Who was it, what did he say, and how did he use his standing as CEO to say it?

I've shared all I feel like sharing on that story. I have no interest in getting into a debate about gamergate. It's such a non-story it deserves as little attention as possible.

But you brought it up, so it clearly isn't a non-story. It has influenced your actions. I genuinely don't know whom you are referring to, so I can't determine how to assess the opinion that you have expressed.

I stand by my decision.

I have a similar issue revolving around gamergate. The CEO of a company I have previous bought things from said some things I found shocking. He was purposely using his standing as a CEO of a company to say things that I didn't just disagree with, but I found to be repugnant. I'm not spending my money on their products any more. There are enough other games where I can play them without thinking about providing him financial support, that I see no reason to give him my money any more. I was a big fan of that company too, one game I had bought three retail versions (two so I could run both machines online and a third as a gift). I bought a collectors edition of another at $100. I'm done now as a customer, because he decided to use his company as a platform to express disgusting views.

I'll bite. Who was it, what did he say, and how did he use his standing as CEO to say it?

Quark Blast wrote:

Vod Canockers wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Fergurg wrote:

Should the government also come into my house and take food out of my fridge to help feed the children of parents who didn't buy food?

More like should the government use the sales tax from food to pay for a food stamp program.

And my answer is the same to both: if you're going to call yourself a progressive knock it off with the regressibe fundting. On the other hand it beats not doing it at all.

There is no Federal sales tax on food in the US. As it is most sales taxes hit the poor harder than the rich. The poor spend a higher percentage of their income on taxable items.

That's because they're too lazy to cook and buy the taxed-up junk food instead.

No, it's because they don't have money to save. Or look at it this way, if someone is making ten times what a poor person makes, do they spend ten times what that poor person does on food, clothes, and other things? Or do they put money into their retirement accounts, invest in stocks, bonds, and other non taxable items, set up savings for their kids education, and all those other things that the poor can't afford to do, because they are trying to house and feed their family?

Off topic, but since it was mentioned, one significant issue about poverty is how rich people and poor people view money.

Fergurg wrote:

Hudax wrote:

Fergurg wrote:

As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless.

Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.

Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile!

If you were reading Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of reading Plato and Shakespeare, then you were doing the opposite of thinking - you were absorbing without thinking.

I don't even know what that means.

Reading classic literature for its own sake is the opposite of thinking?

Sort of. Depends on what you mean by "for its own sake".

Some people read Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of sounding smart and saying, "I read Plato and Shakespeare." That is simply absorbing, which is the opposite of thinking. Might as well read The Turner Diaries.

Now, if you are reading it because you enjoy it, that is different. Some people read them for the purpose of trying to understand some theory or nuance of classical literature, or even to find out why they were so great anyway. (But be careful - they are Dead White Males(tm), so don't read them near a Women's Studies graduate.)

In other words, for a purpose. In order to fulfill a specific thing.

Fergurg wrote:

As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless.

Wish someone had told me that when I was reading all that Plato and Shakespeare.

Damn them! How dare they suggest that thinking is worthwhile!

If you were reading Plato and Shakespeare for the purpose of reading Plato and Shakespeare, then you were doing the opposite of thinking - you were absorbing without thinking.

LazarX wrote:

Fergurg wrote:

Hudax wrote:

Fergurg wrote:

Why would I need an excuse?

You need an excuse because there is no valid argument against the proposal.

I gave 2.

1) The argument that the more common a degree is, the lower its value.

2) I should not have to pay for somebody else's children to go to college. If you want to be generous, do so with your money, not mine.

I imagine the exact same arguments were made against free public high school, and elementary school for that matter.

Exactly. It makes as much sense to oppose free community college as it does to oppose the free public education we already have.

To the arguments:

1) A rising tide raises all ships. There is nothing to lose from everyone becoming smarter and better educated. I mean, what if we create a smarter, better educated nation for nothing? It's a ridiculous argument because education is an end in itself.

You are assuming that everyone getting smarter and better educated would happen. The two are not always connected, and many times, aren't. As for education being an end to itself, that is a ridiculous premise - education for the purpose of education is worthless. What has value is education that applies to something.

Scientific research pays off 2 to 5 times on the money invested, on average. Research is never wasted. Research and education are the same in this regard. Education is never wasted. Money allocated to education will pay society back well beyond what was invested.

The disconnect here is the inability to wait for the payoff. Granted, it would take many years. But the hallmark of successful people is their ability to delay gratification. If as a nation we decide we want instant gratification, on this or any other investment, then as a nation we will fail.

But how long are we supposed to wait? Five years? Ten? A hundred? It isn't the unwillingness to wait for the payoff that I have; it is the disbelief that there will be a payoff at all. It's the same reason I don't buy lottery tickets.

And ultimately if "everyone" has a CC degree, and that means the only job you can find is road construction, then maybe one of those higher educated people will come up with a better way to fix roads, or even a better way to build them, or something so fantastic it would eliminate the need for roads entirely. That may look like loss of value on your degree, but it's actually the opposite. That's the return on investment. Making the world better.

That is still a LOT of people paying a LOT of money for a "maybe" to happen. Gamble with your money, not mine.

And also ultimately, maintaining the quality and competitive value of one's education is one's own responsibility. There's a reason why doctors and others with professional bodies of knowledge constantly have to do continuing education. To keep up. If more people getting CC degrees forces you to keep up or fall behind, so be it. That's your choice to make.

But why should I have to pay to be in that situation?

And since the thing that would be holding you back is FREE, it's a pretty easy choice!

NOW, we're getting to the core disconnect - it's not free. It's just that other people are paying for it.

2) Right now, you pay for other people's children to do a lot of things. Go to the ER.

Very rarely; usually, the hospital writes it off if they can't collect the money.

Collect unemployment.

Nope. Businesses pay into unemployment insurance.

Collect disability. Collect social security (everyone is someone's child regardless of age).

Check again. You pay into social security, which was designed to be you getting your money back.

Drive on public roads, perhaps in public transportation.

All people benefit from that directly and indirectly, not just people who are 18-20 years old and whose parents didn't provide for them to go to college.

Go to the library.

Actually, I would be in favor of a privatized library system. There is enough passion for literature and books that private individuals would run them, all without the baggage of "why are my tax dollars paying for 12 year old boys to look at porn?"

Go to high school.

High school is a joke, and no small part of the reason is because it is free for the students. It has degenerated to the point that a high school diploma is an award for staying awake for 12 years.

What's two more years? Nothing.

First of all, two more years out of my pocket is everything. If I take $10 out of your wallet and give it to the Tea Party PAC, you would not be happy.

Second, since high school is a joke now, I want to do the opposite of "make community college just like that".

And regardless of precisely where the tax money comes from, you would be paying for it somehow, one way or another, unless you stop paying taxes.

Or unless you are one of the people collecting the "freebies" that other people's taxes pay for.

This is the price you pay for living in a nation that invests in society, even to the low extent that the U.S. does.

This is a poor investment, taking money from people who did contribute to their children's future and redistributing it to people who did not, all on the premise of "this might pay off for society, even though it hasn't worked in other areas we tried."

Fergurg wrote:

It is illegal to argue in tax court that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.

It's not illegal to MAKE the argument. You most certainly won't get anywhere with it though.

Actually, it is. It is considered a frivolous tax argument, and there are civil penalties for using them.

Better than Little Buddy.

Or Princess Sophia.

Fergurg wrote:

Should the government also come into my house and take food out of my fridge to help feed the children of parents who didn't buy food?

More like should the government use the sales tax from food to pay for a food stamp program.

Oh, so the government only takes away the money that would stop me from purchasing food. Explain how that is fundamentally different from taking the food that I bought.

And my answer is the same to both: if you're going to call yourself a progressive knock it off with the regressibe fundting. On the other hand it beats not doing it at all.

I do not call myself a progressive. I know that its principles are fundamentally flawed.

Krensky wrote:

Fergurg wrote:

I read something VERY interesting about the "free" college proposal. Turns out part of the funding will come from taxes on the 529 accounts - the ones that people put money in to pay for their child's college.

I was divided on my opinion of it, my chief concern being that the more people have degrees, the less valuable they are. "When everyone's super, then nobody will be," as Syndrome said in The Incredibles. But now, this puts me firmly against it - that money was intended to put my child through college, not the child of someone whose parents didn't save the money.

Except that you'd only be paying tax on the gains, not the savings itself and for most middle lower class families (who dot net use 529s anyway) the expansion of the AOTC makes it a wash.

Also, what Obama is proposing vis-a-vis the 529 situation is reducing a tax cut, not implementing a new tax.

The difference between increasing taxes and reducing a tax cut is semantic, and missing my point - I put my money toward helping my children, not to help the children whose parents didn't do so.

Fergurg wrote:

Why would I need an excuse?

You need an excuse because there is no valid argument against the proposal.

I gave 2.

1) The argument that the more common a degree is, the lower its value.

2) I should not have to pay for somebody else's children to go to college. If you want to be generous, do so with your money, not mine.

Fergurg wrote:

I read something VERY interesting about the "free" college proposal. Turns out part of the funding will come from taxes on the 529 accounts - the ones that people put money in to pay for their child's college.

I was divided on my opinion of it, my chief concern being that the more people have degrees, the less valuable they are. "When everyone's super, then nobody will be," as Syndrome said in The Incredibles. But now, this puts me firmly against it - that money was intended to put my child through college, not the child of someone whose parents didn't save the money.

Except that you'd only be paying tax on the gains, not the savings itself and for most middle lower class families (who dot net use 529s anyway) the expansion of the AOTC makes it a wash.

The way that works is that the 529's help pay for tuition at the current rate, meaning that when it comes due, the difference between then and now is considered a gain. That is what would be taxed, in order to help pay for the tuition of those whose parents didn't do that.

Should the government also come into my house and take food out of my fridge to help feed the children of parents who didn't buy food?