So polluting the air with noise is worse than polluting the air with pollution?I'm not sure what's got you wound up now. If you just came out and said why you were cranky we might be able to get somewhere. If you are talking about catalytic converters then I will say that regulation doesn't exist in a vacuum but alongside emission standards as well.
Shhh! Nobody tell him.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so there are a handfull of, all foreign, electric cars that are affordable. Then again what are repairs like on those things? Not long ago we could fix our ownmake affordable higher millage cars instead of high end crap we cannot buyThe Mitsubishi Mi-EV is about $24,000 MSRP, about $16,300 once the federal benefits are factored in.
The Honda Insight is $19,515 MSRP.
The Toyota Prius c is $19,890 MSRP.
The Toyota Camry is $22,235 MSRP.
That screeching you hear is the sound of Andrew R sheepishly moving the goalposts.
Not that his new goalposts are valid, either. There are numerous examples of affordable, high-mileage vehicles made by American companies, and even the "foreign" ones he casually derides are typically manufactured locally, by American workers in American factories.
|
etymological fallacy
To reinforce meatrace's post: these are the fields that historically cover "libera; arts":
I got that list from UT's web site. I guess only an Ivy League school would do?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To reinforce meatrace's post: these are the fields that historically cover "liberal arts":
No.
The fields that cover the liberal arts are grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.
That's it. Even philosophy was not a liberal art.
Most of your list:
Visual arts
Great books
History
Languages
Linguistics
Literature
Mathematics
Music
Philosophy
Political science
Psychology
Religious studies
Natural science
Social science
Performing artswere never part of the liberal arts and in fact, didn't even exist until well after the development of philosophy as a separate intellectual tradition, and in fact, didn't exist until well after science had developed as an intellectual tradition separated from (natural) philosophy.
So unless you're going to tell me that the city that I visited on the Bosporus a year or so ago was Byzantium, the capitol of the Ottoman Empire, you're simply making an anachronism stew and doing it very badly.
Um, everything on that list has always existed, pretty much. That the Greeks had different words and concepts to describe them doesn't change the fact they were discussing them, thinking about them, etc. Do you honestly mean to tell me that the Republic wasn't poly-sci? Or that no one studied music, acting, dance, sculpting, etc? That religion didn't exist until after Newton? "Didn't exist". Wow.
You truly are just a moron that likes to argue, huh? I can find a freaking essay or a paper written by an ancient Greek that discusses EVERY topic on that list.
/popcorn
Um, everything on that list has always existed, pretty much.
But it wasn't part of a scholarly university curriculum.
Do you honestly mean to tell me that the Republic wasn't poly-sci?
Well, yes. The Republic was never intended to be studied as a serious instance of political science -- it was a work on ethics.
Or that no one studied music, acting, dance, sculpting, etc?
Music, yes, because of its associations with mathematics through Pythagoras. No one studied dance or sculpting at university; those were not proper scholarly disciplines.
That religion didn't exist until after Newton?
Religion existed, but "religious studies" didn't. And "religion" was generally studied as "theology," and was one of the professional degrees like medicine.
I can find a freaking essay or a paper written by an ancient Greek that discusses EVERY topic on that list.
I'm sure you can, which just indicates even more strongly how little you know about the liberal arts, since the liberal arts were about 2000 years after the ancient Greeks.
You're trying to equate all of scholarship with "the liberal arts," including a lot of things that were not considered scholarship by their participants (such as theater). The actual medievals would have laughed at you because the liberal arts deliberately designated a very limited subset of scholarship that was "freed" from any practical considerations and therefore "freed" the mind of the participant.
School sucks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cars in the $1000 to $5000 are far harder to get now than they once were,
Goodness, after fifteen years of inflation, used cars are more expensive. Obviously this must be the result of environmental regulations.
Presumably environmental regulation is also the reason that the cover price of the New York Times has gone from 75 cents to over two dollars? Or that a day ticket to Disneyland, which used to cost $41 now costs nearly $100? Or that a $2.50 Big Mac is now on average $4.62 or so?
Must be those Democrats and their hatred of non-electric used hamburgers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um, everything on that list has always existed, pretty much.
But it wasn't part of a scholarly university curriculum.
Do you honestly mean to tell me that the Republic wasn't poly-sci?Well, yes. The Republic was never intended to be studied as a serious instance of political science -- it was a work on ethics.
Or that no one studied music, acting, dance, sculpting, etc?Music, yes, because of its associations with mathematics through Pythagoras. No one studied dance or sculpting at university; those were not proper scholarly disciplines.
That religion didn't exist until after Newton?Religion existed, but "religious studies" didn't. And "religion" was generally studied as "theology," and was one of the professional degrees like medicine.
I can find a freaking essay or a paper written by an ancient Greek that discusses EVERY topic on that list.I'm sure you can, which just indicates even more strongly how little you know about the liberal arts, since the liberal arts were about 2000 years after the ancient Greeks.
You're trying to equate all of scholarship with "the liberal arts," including a lot of things that were not considered scholarship by their participants (such as theater). The actual medievals would have laughed at you because the liberal arts deliberately designated a very limited subset of scholarship that was "freed" from any practical considerations and therefore "freed" the mind of the participant.
No, he just isn't insisting on an extremely narrow definition of the term which borders on pedantic in this discussion and is most likely counter productive (and certainly counter-intuative) in virtually any situation beyond academia which uses the term.
He is also correct in his understanding of how time works. Ie., the basic jist is that time flows from the past into the present without backtracking or sidewinding (from our perspective anyway). So when he says that disciplinary studies took place before Newton and cites the Greeks, then he is absolutely correct.
If you say "did not exist," but mean "was not called" then you don't get to act like a smug jerk because people took your words at face value. Don't communicate badly and then act like it is your audience's fault for not understanding.
|
|
Actually, all I was saying is that now, in our universities, all of those subjects are taught as liberal arts. I don't give a crap about the Greek three or the seven the Church added to the list, since we're being pedantic, as the REPUBLICAN PARTY of the Untied States didn't exist back then, either, and this is a thread about Republicans not voting for a minimum wage increase. I doubt Aristophanes or Socrates had much to say about this topic.
Of course, there are a few people here who think they're intelligent, but actually just regurgitate Wikipedia articles without crediting them.
;-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've studied advanced mathematics, chemistry, geophysics, mechanical systems, ecological development and formations for years
And after all that, you still have no idea how ozone depletion works, no idea in the world why urban heat islands form, and in short, no idea how climate science works.
No, he just isn't insisting on an extremely narrow definition of the term which borders on pedantic in this discussion,
Shrug. Words have meanings. You should try using them sometime.
"Scholarship" and "the liberal arts" mean different things; you obviously accept that, or we'd not be having this discussion. There are a number of fields of scholarship that were practiced by the ancient Greeks, that the medievals were well aware of, that they explicitly excluded from the "liberal arts." It's hardly pedantic to point out that the people in the 12th century knew about history, philosophy, and law but didn't study those as part of the liberal arts.
Similarly, there are a lot of fields of human endeavour that are not part of "scholarship"; we don't consider NASCAR driving to be scholarship today, and the medievals felt the same way about performing arts, visual arts, home economics, and so forth.
Finally, there are a lot of fields that literally didn't exist in the 12th century, starting with anything with the word "science" in it, because science itself, in the form of the scientific method, did not exist until the 17th century.
Sure, you can prove anything you like if you're allowed to ignore the actual content of what you or anyone else says. You can prove it to yourself, anyway.....
No, he just isn't insisting on an extremely narrow definition of the term which borders on pedantic in this discussion,Shrug. Words have meanings. You should try using them sometime.
"Scholarship" and "the liberal arts" mean different things; you obviously accept that, or we'd not be having this discussion. There are a number of fields of scholarship that were practiced by the ancient Greeks, that the medievals were well aware of, that they explicitly excluded from the "liberal arts." It's hardly pedantic to point out that the people in the 12th century knew about history, philosophy, and law but didn't study those as part of the liberal arts.
Similarly, there are a lot of fields of human endeavour that are not part of "scholarship"; we don't consider NASCAR driving to be scholarship today, and the medievals felt the same way about performing arts, visual arts, home economics, and so forth.
Finally, there are a lot of fields that literally didn't exist in the 12th century, starting with anything with the word "science" in it, because science itself, in the form of the scientific method, did not exist until the 17th century.
Sure, you can prove anything you like if you're allowed to ignore the actual content of what you or anyone else says. You can prove it to yourself, anyway.....
It is entirely pedantic to insist upon an ivory tower term definition which is rooted in antiquity to attempt to debunk an argument being made about financial issues of the modern university. Particularly when the vernacular use of the term was completely apropos to describe the studies in question by the poster.
|
|
I've studied advanced mathematics, chemistry, geophysics, mechanical systems, ecological development and formations for yearsAnd after all that, you still have no idea how ozone depletion works, no idea in the world why urban heat islands form, and in short, no idea how climate science works.
Maybe he got his degree at the same university I received my Doctorate in Philosophy.
;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I suspect when he says he "studied geophysics," he means that a geophysicist at one of the job sites he was on let him look at the pretty display and say "Oooooh." After all, he didn't actually say he took a course in it, or studied the discipline itself.
|
|
Cars in the $1000 to $5000 are far harder to get now than they once were,Goodness, after fifteen years of inflation, used cars are more expensive. Obviously this must be the result of environmental regulations.
Presumably environmental regulation is also the reason that the cover price of the New York Times has gone from 75 cents to over two dollars? Or that a day ticket to Disneyland, which used to cost $41 now costs nearly $100? Or that a $2.50 Big Mac is now on average $4.62 or so?
Must be those Democrats and their hatred of non-electric used hamburgers.
The reason cars in that range are harder to find is a lot of cars that would have wound up on used car lots wound up being compacted when they did that trade in deal a few years ago. Simple supply and demand, actually.
But then, you can help poor people or you can help the environment. Poor people can't afford a Prius (o even a LEAF, for that matter), and rely on cheap cars (quite a few of which weren't terribly fuel efficient) if they want to avoid public transportation (which, if you live in Houston, taking a bus back and forth can be a three hour chunk of your day total).
Seriously, dude, I hate to break it to you, but everything, even good things, can have negative effects. And quite a few of those effects tend to hurt the poor and working class disproportionately.
Edit: Never mind, I didn't see it was you I was responding to. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.
The reason cars in that range are harder to find is a lot of cars that would have wound up on used car lots wound up being compacted when they did that trade in deal a few years ago.
And who compacted the $2.50 Big Macs, which are also a lot harder to find today than they were fifteen years ago?
Simple supply and demand, actually.
Nope. Simple inflation raises the baseline price in nominal dollars, so it's harder to find objects priced at the older price.
You might have something if the price of used cars had actually gone up substantially above the rate of inflation. However, there's been about 40% inflation since 1999, and we've already established that the price of used cars has only gone up about 30% over that period.
So there's apparently less inflationary pressure on used cars than there is on things like clothing, furniture, airplane tickets, paper, and so forth. Empirically, we appear actually to have an oversupply of used cars by comparison. Or else people don't want used cars.
Had to get a 2003 Corolla in a pinch last fall for my fiancee.
Cheapest used car we could find that still had a warranty: $7500.00.
Link to a site, not a PDF. I am not taking a chance of downloading something nasty. Basic internet courtesy.
Shrug. It's not like the historical consumer price index is a secret. And the site involved is bls.gov, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Annual average CPI-U for 1999 : 166.6
Annual average CPI-U for 2013 : 232.957
Net change in CPI-U between 1999-2013: 39.830%
|
|
Had to get a 2003 Corolla in a pinch last fall for my fiancee.
Cheapest used car we could find that still had a warranty: $7500.00.
Yeah, a 2003 Corolla shouldn't cost anything close to that.
Edit: after checking, the blue book is between $5,900 and $6,500 for the correct mileage and condition, variation due to different options packages. The Kelly Blue book for a Corolla, most expensive model with all the options, excellent condition, private sale (always higher than trade-in value) in Houston (there are regional differences, apparently) is $5,605.
But, the real world isn't Kelly Blue Book or the Office of Labor Statistics, so I guess we can dismiss all of that nonsense.
I agree, man. But buying a car that old without any warranty (as is) isn't a risk I was willing to take either.
There was a 2006 G6 there for 5k, as is. No thanks.
I had a 96 Plymouth Breeze...less than pleasant experience. It had a warranty, but unbeknownst to me at the time, it had a bad habit of blowing head gaskets, and had already been in for recall twice.
Edit: Plymouth isn't GM.
"Why do you have a walking stick in your car?
"Plan B.
Of course, there are a few people here who think they're intelligent, but actually just regurgitate Wikipedia articles without crediting them.
But Wikipedia says that the ability to regurgitate Wikipedia articles is the definition of intelligence!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking land from people in the name of "environmental protection" IS. Sending jobs to other, to not see or hear or smell it, nations IS hurting americans and not doing a damn thing to help anyone but foreign workers and foreign economies
You are not only making mountains out of mole hills, you're complaining about molehills that your philosophy put there in the first place.
Taking land for environmental protection wouldn't be necessary nearly as often if people could be reasonable with it. Hey, you've got a rare species in your forest. How about you do some selection cutting and leave a few snags*? Thats too complicated ? How about a checkerboard pattern? No? Could you maybe limit the size of the clear cuts? No.... alright then, here's a check, its ours now is the only option.
In the globe today economy is power more than military in many ways and that is a war we are close to losing.
This isn't new. The US based its foreign and Indian policy around the economic powerhouse of slavery for the first half of its existence, wars were fought over the colonies natural resources, including the white pine they used for ships masts, and it probably goes back to tribal skirmishes over the strategic flint reserves.
We won't have to learn the language of military conquerors, We will have to learn those of our new employers, those that own our companies and control our economy.
Huh... if only there were some way of stopping companies from acting like that.
Oh, right, you don't want the government to DO anything. We try to stop the companies from buying elections and you cry "Tyranny!" You are making yourself terrified of the monster under the bed and then complaining that flashlights are evil.
YOU are the one who wants to enact programs to hurt people, you do not care the cost nor the real effect as long as you are looking and feeling like you care.
ANYTHING a government does is going to help some people and hurt others. I can take the costs, benefits, and risks into consideration. The other side is nothing more than "GOVERNMENT BAAAD!" which cannot. It is worse than willful ignorance to assume that the government is completely incapable of doing any good and it is ridiculous past the point of parody to say that any harm done completely negates all of the benefit.
*mind you, the EPA would need to sit down with OSHA and work that out.
But then, you can help poor people or you can help the environment. Poor people can't afford a Prius (o even a LEAF, for that matter), and rely on cheap cars (quite a few of which weren't terribly fuel efficient) if they want to avoid public transportation (which, if you live in Houston, taking a bus back and forth can be a three hour chunk of your day total).
Poor people can afford USED Priuses (Prii?) though.
Case in point--I am poor and drive a Prius.
But then, you can help poor people or you can help the environment. Poor people can't afford a Prius (o even a LEAF, for that matter), and rely on cheap cars (quite a few of which weren't terribly fuel efficient) if they want to avoid public transportation (which, if you live in Houston, taking a bus back and forth can be a three hour chunk of your day total).Poor people can afford USED Priuses (Prii?) though.
Case in point--I am poor and drive a Prius.
Don't be silly. Check the previous posts in this thread. No one can afford used cars, because they were all pulped along with most of the world's supply of Big Macs.
If it were possible for poor people to afford used cars, then clearly the sky wouldn't be falling on Planet Andrew.
|
|
But then, you can help poor people or you can help the environment. Poor people can't afford a Prius (o even a LEAF, for that matter), and rely on cheap cars (quite a few of which weren't terribly fuel efficient) if they want to avoid public transportation (which, if you live in Houston, taking a bus back and forth can be a three hour chunk of your day total).Poor people can afford USED Priuses (Prii?) though.
Case in point--I am poor and drive a Prius.
I think we may have different ideas what "poor" means. $18k (the average price for a used Prius around here, and our cars tend to be cheaper than most other places) isn't usually in the "poor" range. My brand new car cost $18k, and I couldn't afford it on my close to minimum wage salary if my fiance didn't make decent money.
I think we may have different ideas what "poor" means. $18k (the average price for a used Prius around here, and our cars tend to be cheaper than most other places) isn't usually in the "poor" range. My brand new car cost $18k, and I couldn't afford it on my close to minimum wage salary if my fiance didn't make decent money.But then, you can help poor people or you can help the environment. Poor people can't afford a Prius (o even a LEAF, for that matter), and rely on cheap cars (quite a few of which weren't terribly fuel efficient) if they want to avoid public transportation (which, if you live in Houston, taking a bus back and forth can be a three hour chunk of your day total).Poor people can afford USED Priuses (Prii?) though.
Case in point--I am poor and drive a Prius.
Of course there are non- hybrid cars that still get way better gas mileage than the "clunkers" that were destroyed. Also the cash for clunkers program was voluntary. Nobody was forced to give up their 1940s Gas Hog and go buy a hybrid.
I think we may have different ideas what "poor" means. $18k (the average price for a used Prius around here, and our cars tend to be cheaper than most other places) isn't usually in the "poor" range. My brand new car cost $18k, and I couldn't afford it on my close to minimum wage salary if my fiance didn't make decent money.But then, you can help poor people or you can help the environment. Poor people can't afford a Prius (o even a LEAF, for that matter), and rely on cheap cars (quite a few of which weren't terribly fuel efficient) if they want to avoid public transportation (which, if you live in Houston, taking a bus back and forth can be a three hour chunk of your day total).Poor people can afford USED Priuses (Prii?) though.
Case in point--I am poor and drive a Prius.
*looks on Craigslist*
So the CL search for HOUSTON (which is I assume where you're "from") returned some 80 ads. There's literally dozens for less than 8 grand. So, while $18k may be the literal "average" price of a used Prius (I'm too lazy to do actual math on 80 listings), if you're willing to buy a car more than 5 years old (i.e. used) you'll be paying less than half of that.
As I said upthread, we bought a generation 1 for 6 grand 3 years ago and it still gets upwards of 40mpg, hasn't required any expensive maintenance or anything, and is being afforded on a $10/hr job. Heck, when we bought it my gf was unemployed and my job was the only source of income. With insurance, and we're required to be fully insured, it's about $200/mo. Including gas it's about $260.
|
|
It still took a bunch of cars that cost less than $2,000 off the streets. And that's the range actual poor people usually can afford. It didn't hurt the mid range Japanese car availability, most of them didn't qualify in the mpg arena. When we're talking really poor, a gas guzzler that you only use for getting to work is still cheaper than a car $3000 to $4000 more off the lot, even with the gas. And anything you make payments on requires a lot more insurance than just liability.
Meh. Obama is Jebus, he did no wrong.
It still took a bunch of cars that cost less than $2,000 off the streets. And that's the range actual poor people usually can afford. It didn't hurt the mid range Japanese car availability, most of them didn't qualify in the mpg arena. When we're talking really poor, a gas guzzler that you only use for getting to work is still cheaper than a car $3000 to $4000 more off the lot, even with the gas. And anything you make payments on requires a lot more insurance than just liability.
Meh. Obama is Jebus, he did no wrong.
Oh I see, I must be wrong because I'm not "really" poor.
Maybe I should set up a CL ad for some missing goalposts.
It still took a bunch of cars that cost less than $2,000 off the streets.
Goalposts on wheels, man..... Or maybe goalposts on rocket sleds.
'97 Lincoln Towncar, m!~#%$!!$@%~s. In four colors.
Craigslist: Because getting murdered should always be an option.
Obama is Jebus, he did no wrong.
More like you have no idea what he did, so it must have been wrong.
|
Of course there are non- hybrid cars that still get way better gas mileage than the "clunkers" that were destroyed. Also the cash for clunkers program was voluntary. Nobody was forced to give up their 1940s Gas Hog and go buy a hybrid.I think we may have different ideas what "poor" means. $18k (the average price for a used Prius around here, and our cars tend to be cheaper than most other places) isn't usually in the "poor" range. My brand new car cost $18k, and I couldn't afford it on my close to minimum wage salary if my fiance didn't make decent money.But then, you can help poor people or you can help the environment. Poor people can't afford a Prius (o even a LEAF, for that matter), and rely on cheap cars (quite a few of which weren't terribly fuel efficient) if they want to avoid public transportation (which, if you live in Houston, taking a bus back and forth can be a three hour chunk of your day total).Poor people can afford USED Priuses (Prii?) though.
Case in point--I am poor and drive a Prius.
They did not crush any 1940's gas hogs, they destroyed a bunch of relitively new and not so bad on gas cars so that people could take the cash to go buy new ones. Did you ever actually see what cars qualify?
[Revs the Doodlemobile]
I don't know. Is twenty miles to the gallon bad?
[Lights a doob and peels out]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[Does donuts on your lawn]
[Does donuts on your lawn]
mmm....donuts
[Runs into your mailbox]
[Runs over your dog]