Post by: Mase on May 25, 2016, 08:25:57 PM
http://theweek.com/speedreads/626361/oberlin-students-want-abolish-midterms-grades-below-c (http://theweek.com/speedreads/626361/oberlin-students-want-abolish-midterms-grades-below-c)
Post by: InTheSoup on May 25, 2016, 09:05:21 PM
Post by: asechrest on May 25, 2016, 09:33:08 PM
I had a high school teacher ask me and a friend on the last day of the year, what grade we deserved to get. I said I should get a B as I tried my best. My friend barely paid any attention, skiped classes and failed every test he took. He said he deserved an A because it was harder for him to study than everyone else. She gave me a B and him an A. Guess that should have been a sign. Move ahead 20 years and now everyone wants to help those that dont deserve it and penlize those that work hard.
What a shitty teacher.
Post by: JeffDG on May 26, 2016, 06:15:03 AM
What aFixed that for you.shittyprogressive teacher.
Post by: Steingar on May 26, 2016, 06:24:15 AM
Post by: asechrest on May 26, 2016, 06:46:27 AM
Fixed that for you.
I think the coddled special snowflakes need their own political party.
Post by: Jaybird180 on May 26, 2016, 07:09:40 AM
I had a high school teacher ask me and a friend on the last day of the year, what grade we deserved to get. I said I should get a B as I tried my best. My friend barely paid any attention, skiped classes and failed every test he took. He said he deserved an A because it was harder for him to study than everyone else. She gave me a B and him an A. Guess that should have been a sign. Move ahead 20 years and now everyone wants to help those that dont deserve it and penlize those that work hard.If you learned a life lesson then it was a great teacher! :)
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 26, 2016, 08:21:44 AM
Students always want good grades, always have.
at one time, some students understood that you have to earn good grades.
I hope that doesn't hurt the heads of some people...
Post by: nddons on May 26, 2016, 12:06:46 PM
at one time, some students understood that you have to earn good grades.HATER!!!!!
I hope that doesn't hurt the heads of some people...
Post by: asechrest on May 26, 2016, 12:11:58 PM
at one time, some students understood that you have to earn good grades.
I hope that doesn't hurt the heads of some people...
Hurtful words such as these erode the utopian atmosphere of my safe space.
Post by: Steingar on May 26, 2016, 12:17:35 PM
at one time, some students understood that you have to earn good grades.
I hope that doesn't hurt the heads of some people...
Yup. They still ask, but back down quickly when you mention the whole learning thing. Surprised to hear this about Oberlin, its supposed to be a really good school.
Post by: Mase on May 26, 2016, 02:33:09 PM
Students always want good grades, always have.
Apparently not enough to actually earn them.
Post by: LevelWing on May 26, 2016, 07:26:46 PM
Post by: LevelWing on May 26, 2016, 07:27:25 PM
I think the coddled special snowflakes need their own political party.Careful, you're starting to sound like a conservative. :P
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 26, 2016, 07:34:31 PM
Post by: asechrest on May 26, 2016, 11:05:24 PM
Careful, you're starting to sound like a conservative. :P
;D I think it's just that I'm not one of these new age snowflake liberals that they're pumping out lately.
Post by: bflynn on May 27, 2016, 05:59:37 AM
So, thanks to certain activist, there are a number of schools that I just flat out will not hire from because the school is rotten. Think about this if you have someone headed off to college...
Post by: Number7 on May 27, 2016, 11:35:00 AM
I think the coddled special snowflakes need their own political party.
They have it. It's called the democratic party.
Post by: Anthony on May 28, 2016, 05:22:24 AM
They have it. It's called the democratic party.
Which has adopted EVERY far left, radical, KOOK ideology known to Man.
Post by: alexgeo on May 28, 2016, 05:40:22 AM
I had a high school teacher ask me and a friend on the last day of the year, what grade we deserved to get. I said I should get a B as I tried my best. My friend barely paid any attention, skiped classes and failed every test he took. He said he deserved an A because it was harder for him to study than everyone else. She gave me a B and him an A. Guess that should have been a sign. Move ahead 20 years and now everyone wants to help those that dont deserve it and penlize those that work hard.
Just wanted to chime in on this. I'm currently a graduating senior at an extremely liberal university in Northern California. No, I'm not majoring in gender studies (I'm actually on track to become a CPA), but I've taken my fair share of classes with professors that have gone completely off the rails.
During my freshman year of college I was required to take a social justice writing class. In all honesty, the class was relatively interesting and I learned quite a bit about formulating arguments. Similar to your story, the professor sent us an email at the end of the quarter asking us to submit our own grade and to write a short justification. Even though I scored very high on most of the writing assignments and scored very well on the end of the year project, I gave myself an A- to be humble. Guess what...I ended up with an A-.
Now I know an A- isn't a bad grade at all, but after speaking with other people who had taken that class, it seems like she ended up giving most students the grade that they requested. Looking back on this, I should've put down A+. I probably would've gotten it....
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 28, 2016, 06:24:05 AM
Just wanted to chime in on this. I'm currently a graduating senior at an extremely liberal university in Northern California. No, I'm not majoring in gender studies (I'm actually on track to become a CPA), but I've taken my fair share of classes with professors that have gone completely off the rails.
During my freshman year of college I was required to take a social justice writing class. In all honesty, the class was relatively interesting and I learned quite a bit about formulating arguments. Similar to your story, the professor sent us an email at the end of the quarter asking us to submit our own grade and to write a short justification. Even though I scored very high on most of the writing assignments and scored very well on the end of the year project, I gave myself an A- to be humble. Guess what...I ended up with an A-.
Now I know an A- isn't a bad grade at all, but after speaking with other people who had taken that class, it seems like she ended up giving most students the grade that they requested. Looking back on this, I should've put down A+. I probably would've gotten it....
In the interests of "social justice" you should have said you earned an A but think you should be given a C so that someone without White Privilege can get a C also, even if they deserved an F.
Post by: asechrest on May 28, 2016, 06:42:15 AM
They have it. It's called the democratic party.
Nope. Democrats hold a broad slice of society, not all of whom are snowflakes. Snowflakes need their own party.
Post by: Anthony on May 28, 2016, 06:51:31 AM
Nope. Democrats hold a broad slice of society, not all of whom are snowflakes. Snowflakes need their own party.
I would agree with that, but that broad slice of society is following BLINDLY. The DNC/Democrat party policies, are all far left, and radical, perfectly in line with the communist, PC snowflakes. It certainly represents, and supports the BLM/Feminazi/LGBT/Occupy Wall Street crowd.
Post by: Little Joe on May 29, 2016, 01:29:53 PM
Nope. Democrats hold a broad slice of society, not all of whom are snowflakes. Snowflakes need their own party.Perhaps some of you Democrats would prefer the snowflakes to start their own party, but the Democrat party in general is perfectly willing to trade principles for votes and willingly accept those snowflakes. In fact, they actively encourage them.
Post by: asechrest on May 31, 2016, 05:17:17 AM
Perhaps some of you Democrats would prefer the snowflakes to start their own party, but the Democrat party in general is perfectly willing to trade principles for votes and willingly accept those snowflakes. In fact, they actively encourage them.
Says the party of Trump the Unprincipled. ::)
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 31, 2016, 05:34:28 AM
Says the party of Trump the Unprincipled. ::)
"Trump the Unprincipled" ?
Trump is JV to the corruption of the doormat and the rest of the DNC.
Post by: Little Joe on May 31, 2016, 05:38:24 AM
Says the party of Trump the Unprincipled. ::)Even you have to admit that Trump is not your typical republican.
Post by: asechrest on May 31, 2016, 07:07:26 AM
"Trump the Unprincipled" ?
Trump is JV to the corruption of the doormat and the rest of the DNC.
Different levels of shitty, yes. Both shitty, though. Yes, that's a technical term. :D
Post by: JeffDG on May 31, 2016, 08:45:05 AM
"Trump the Unprincipled" ?I don't understand why somehow the payer of the bribe is all sweetness and light, while the receiver is corrupt.
Trump is JV to the corruption of the doormat and the rest of the DNC.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 31, 2016, 12:59:46 PM
I don't understand why somehow the payer of the bribe is all sweetness and light, while the receiver is corrupt.
non sequitur
Post by: Little Joe on May 31, 2016, 01:07:45 PM
I don't understand why somehow the payer of the bribe is all sweetness and light, while the receiver is corrupt.I don't understand why you don't understand.
Post by: JeffDG on May 31, 2016, 06:22:37 PM
non sequiturNope.
Everyone says Hillary is corrupt, and she most certainly is. Trump however is just as corrupt as he has been on the payor side of the transaction, and now he's on the receiving side. Oh, didn't you hear, he's no longer self-funding.
Post by: Little Joe on May 31, 2016, 06:25:53 PM
Nope.OMG! Trump is taking (perfectly legal) donations!!! What is happening?
Everyone says Hillary is corrupt, and she most certainly is. Trump however is just as corrupt as he has been on the payor side of the transaction, and now he's on the receiving side. Oh, didn't you hear, he's no longer self-funding.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 31, 2016, 06:32:58 PM
Nope.
Everyone says Hillary is corrupt, and she most certainly is. Trump however is just as corrupt as he has been on the payor side of the transaction, and now he's on the receiving side. Oh, didn't you hear, he's no longer self-funding.
Yes, a non sequitur.
the donald is nothing compared to the corruption of the doormat.
Nothing about the donald's corruption and the doormat's corruption only refers to being on the receiving end.
Post by: JeffDG on May 31, 2016, 06:55:04 PM
OMG! Trump is taking (perfectly legal) donations!!! What is happening?Oh, so Clinton has been convicted of taking illegal donations then?
Post by: JeffDG on May 31, 2016, 06:56:03 PM
Yes, a non sequitur.Another assertion presented in the absence of evidence.
the donald is nothing compared to the corruption of the doormat.
Nothing about the donald's corruption and the doormat's corruption only refers to being on the receiving end.
Post by: Little Joe on June 01, 2016, 08:04:06 AM
Oh, so Clinton has been convicted of taking illegal donations then?The premise does not lead to that conclusion.
But if you multiply the "preponderance of the evidence" times the severity of the charges,
Clinton comes out way ahead of Trump in the corrupt category.
Unless you just really really hate Trump.
Post by: JeffDG on June 01, 2016, 08:05:52 AM
The premise does not lead to that conclusion.Trump has admitted that he donated to politicians to greese the wheels. That's an admission that he expected favours in return for the money, or effectively an admission that he gave them bribes.
But if you multiply the "preponderance of the evidence" times the severity of the charges,
Clinton comes out way ahead of Trump in the corrupt category.
Unless you just really really hate Trump.
I've not seen a similar admission from Clinton that she sold influence.
On the balance of probabilities, we have an admitted briber vs an alleged bribee.
Post by: Little Joe on June 01, 2016, 08:07:50 AM
Trump has admitted that he donated to politicians to greese the wheels. That's an admission that he expected favours in return for the money, or effectively an admission that he gave them bribes.All that proves is that Trump is honest. As for Clinton, well, I suppose those papers were on the dining room table for all those years and nobody noticed.
I've not seen a similar admission from Clinton that she sold influence.
On the balance of probabilities, we have an admitted briber vs an alleged bribee.
She's a freakin liar.
Post by: LevelWing on June 01, 2016, 08:31:27 AM
Trump has admitted that he donated to politicians to greese the wheels. That's an admission that he expected favours in return for the money, or effectively an admission that he gave them bribes.To be fair, the Clinton Global Initiative has received a lot of questionable funds from foreign governments, likely with the intent to get favors in return, especially if she becomes president.
I've not seen a similar admission from Clinton that she sold influence.
On the balance of probabilities, we have an admitted briber vs an alleged bribee.
Post by: JeffDG on June 01, 2016, 08:34:57 AM
To be fair, the Clinton Global Initiative has received a lot of questionable funds from foreign governments, likely with the intent to get favors in return, especially if she becomes president.That's all likely true.
Trump, however, has admitted giving politicians money as effective bribes.
Clinton is still only alleged to have received such "donations".
Not excusing Clinton at all, trust me. But Trumps past as the admitted (proud even) payor of bribes makes him a very poor candidate to take on someone accused of receiving them.
There is no moral difference between someone who buys politicians and a politician who has been bought. Without those willing to buy political favours, politicians would not be able to sell them.
I find it hypocritical of Trump's supporters to say Clinton is corrupt, yet refuse to admit their God-King is just as corrupt, if not more so.
Post by: bflynn on June 01, 2016, 09:11:49 AM
Trump has admitted that he donated to politicians to greese the wheels. That's an admission that he expected favours in return for the money, or effectively an admission that he gave them bribes.
I've not seen a similar admission from Clinton that she sold influence.
On the balance of probabilities, we have an admitted briber vs an alleged bribee.
DO you really think there is anyone here that does not believe our government is led by professional whores? Every political person in the government is for sale for the right price. And I do mean sale, you can obscure it and pretend that it goes to a charity or to this fund or that fund, but everyone is in on it. Lobbyists are the ultimate proof that the Republic has broken down. "Giving money" is how you get YOUR law through, otherwise Fracking Schuster wouldn't be so obstinate about a program that nobody except his donors want.
Post by: JeffDG on June 01, 2016, 09:13:47 AM
DO you really think there is anyone here that does not believe our government is led by professional whores? Every political person in the government is for sale for the right price. And I do mean sale, you can obscure it and pretend that it goes to a charity or to this fund or that fund, but everyone is in on it. Lobbyists are the ultimate proof that the Republic has broken down. "Giving money" is how you get YOUR law through, otherwise Fracking Schuster wouldn't be so obstinate about a program that nobody except his donors want.If there were not people ponying up that money, then politicians wouldn't be able to sell influence. In the absense of payors of graft, graft cannot exist.
This idea that politicians are wholly to blame for graft is ludicrous. Those who pay the bribes are just as guilty of corruption as those who receive them.
Post by: Little Joe on June 01, 2016, 09:20:49 AM
If there were not people ponying up that money, then politicians wouldn't be able to sell influence. In the absense of payors of graft, graft cannot exist.Those that are paying those "bribes" would certainly rather not have to pay. If the politicians would listen to each request and select the best on their merits, we would all be better off. But it is the politicians with the commodity of value that they hold out to the highest bidder, and it is they that set the rules to the game. The politicians could easily say "no" to the bribes and still get their job done. Not the other way around.
This idea that politicians are wholly to blame for graft is ludicrous. Those who pay the bribes are just as guilty of corruption as those who receive them.
It is the same philosophy that restricts the actions of anyone in power, whether it is a teacher/student, boss/employee or Officer/enlisted relationship. It is for a reason that the one in power that is held accountable.
Post by: JeffDG on June 01, 2016, 09:29:36 AM
Those that are paying those "bribes" would certainly rather not have to pay. If the politicians would listen to each request and select the best on their merits, we would all be better off. But it is the politicians with the commodity of value that they hold out to the highest bidder, and it is they that set the rules to the game. The politicians could easily say "no" to the bribes and still get their job done. Not the other way around.How is it better to be the payor than the payee?
It is the same philosophy that restricts the actions of anyone in power, whether it is a teacher/student, boss/employee or Officer/enlisted relationship. It is for a reason that the one in power that is held accountable.
If all businesses refused to pay bribes, politicians would have nothing to sell. Oh, but you'll say, you'll never get ALL businesses to stop, so the ones who don't will be at a disadvantage, right?
Well, the same can be said "If all politicians stopped taking bribes..." Well, you'll never get them all, so the ones who don't accept will be at a disadvantage, so it's OK for them to take them.
Post by: bflynn on June 01, 2016, 09:48:13 AM
Anyone can break the bribery cycle. They don't because it would place them at a large disadvantage relative to their peers.
Post by: JeffDG on June 01, 2016, 09:53:35 AM
Don't selectively pretend outrage going just one way. You'd be worse than Hillary.The easiest way to break the bribery cycle is to drastically reduce the scope of government in society.
Anyone can break the bribery cycle. They don't because it would place them at a large disadvantage relative to their peers.
If there weren't so much money at stake, there'd be no reason to bribe, and no influence to sell.
Take Donald's bribes. If landowners didn't have to go play "Mother May I" with various government boards and commissions before doing what they want with their land, there's be no reason to buy off folks for influence on such commissions.
And the strange thing is, if you take others in Donald's own business like Adelson, they didn't give money to Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Schumer, yet their casinos tend to make more money than Donald's, so Donnie's claim "That's just how business is done" is falsified by actual facts.
Post by: Little Joe on June 01, 2016, 09:56:29 AM
How is it better to be the payor than the payee?That is where your premise fails, and fails badly, and dare I say, purposely.
If all businesses refused to pay bribes, politicians would have nothing to sell.
Politicians will ALWAYS have influence to sell. Someone will ALWAYS be willing to pay some price for it. So the politician merely gets the highest price he can. If Trump didn't pay millions, and nobody else would pay thousands, then the politician may be forced to accept hundreds. Heck, I'd pay that for favorable treatment, and so would you.
But as long as there are politicians, those politicians will have valuable influence for sale. The only question is how much they can charge for it.
Post by: JeffDG on June 01, 2016, 09:57:39 AM
But as long as there are politicians, those politicians will have valuable influence for sale. The only question is how much they can charge for it.No, the important question is: How much influence do they have to sell?
Post by: Little Joe on June 01, 2016, 10:00:43 AM
No, the important question is: How much influence do they have to sell?True, but you are introducing an argument not in the discussion.
I agree that the solution is to reduce the size of government, thus reducing the amount of influence the politicians control. But that isn't the condition we currently live in now, is it?
But even then, the politicians are still going to have influence for which they can extract a toll.
Post by: JeffDG on June 01, 2016, 10:01:32 AM
True, but you are introducing an argument not in the discussion.And the two major party candidates both want to increase the size and scope of said influence.
I agree that the solution is to reduce the size of government, thus reducing the amount of influence the politicians control. But that isn't the condition we currently live in now, is it?
But even then, the politicians are still going to have influence for which they can extract a toll.
Post by: nddons on June 01, 2016, 10:08:34 AM
The premise does not lead to that conclusion.How do you know that? This is not a rhetorical question.
But if you multiply the "preponderance of the evidence" times the severity of the charges,
Clinton comes out way ahead of Trump in the corrupt category.
Unless you just really really hate Trump.
All we know about Trump is what he has said. He hasn't released his tax returns. His FEC financial disclosure is a joke, is completely self-reported, and is unverifiable.
The press hasn't even started its anal probe of Trump, and probably never will, since the ratings for a Trump candidacy will be huge.
It's a fairly disturbing fact that we know so little of him. Celebrity Apprentice doesn't count.
Post by: Little Joe on June 01, 2016, 10:17:18 AM
How do you know that? This is not a rhetorical question.Why is it that everything negative or stupid that he says, you and Jeff take as Gospel.
All we know about Trump is what he has said. He hasn't released his tax returns. His FEC financial disclosure is a joke, is completely self-reported, and is unverifiable.
The press hasn't even started its anal probe of Trump, and probably never will, since the ratings for a Trump candidacy will be huge.
It's a fairly disturbing fact that we know so little of him. Celebrity Apprentice doesn't count.
But anything positive and helpful that he says, you say he is lying.
It is tough to debate those tactics.
It is also difficult to disprove a negative.
You say he is untrustworthy because we don't know enough about him. Yet we know that Hillary is untrustworthy and yet you guys say they are equally untrustworthy.
And saying that the Press hasn't even started it's anal probe yet can only be explained by blinders. I have been reading stories and rumors about things Trump has done 30 years ago. Perhaps the reason they haven't come up with more dirt is that there just isn't that much dirt worthy of publishing.
Post by: jb1842 on June 01, 2016, 11:05:50 AM
DO you really think there is anyone here that does not believe our government is led by professional whores? Every political person in the government is for sale for the right price. And I do mean sale, you can obscure it and pretend that it goes to a charity or to this fund or that fund, but everyone is in on it. Lobbyists are the ultimate proof that the Republic has broken down. "Giving money" is how you get YOUR law through, otherwise Fracking Schuster wouldn't be so obstinate about a program that nobody except his donors want.
Whores leave after you pay them for their services. The government still sticks around.
Post by: nddons on June 01, 2016, 11:38:57 AM
Why is it that everything negative or stupid that he says, you and Jeff take as Gospel.
But anything positive and helpful that he says, you say he is lying.
It is tough to debate those tactics.
It is also difficult to disprove a negative.
You say he is untrustworthy because we don't know enough about him. Yet we know that Hillary is untrustworthy and yet you guys say they are equally untrustworthy.
And saying that the Press hasn't even started it's anal probe yet can only be explained by blinders. I have been reading stories and rumors about things Trump has done 30 years ago. Perhaps the reason they haven't come up with more dirt is that there just isn't that much dirt worthy of publishing.
Don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I said.
I was challenging your statement that:
"Clinton comes out way ahead of Trump in the corrupt category."
I simply want to know how you know that.
I think he's not trustworthy based upon his own words, and how he's changed his tune on a number of issues in and for this campaign, on substantive issues such as the Second Amendment, abortion, trade, immigration, his own tax policies, and other matters.
When we start to hear a federal case made out of things like how Trump carried his dogs on the roof of his car, then maybe that will be a sign that the press will be getting serious about looking into him. They haven't been so far. "Stories and rumors about things Trump has done 30 years ago" don't really constitute investigative journalism in my book.
Post by: Little Joe on June 01, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
Don't put words in my mouth. That's not what I said.I was practically quoting you.
I was challenging your statement that:Ok, I don't KNOW that. But that is my "spin" on it. I don't know if Trump is corrupt or not, but if he were, I feel quite confident that a lot more of it would be out in the open by now. But in my mind, I do know that Hillary is corrupt.
"Clinton comes out way ahead of Trump in the corrupt category."
I simply want to know how you know that.
I think he's not trustworthy based upon his own words, and how he's changed his tune on a number of issues in and for this campaign, on substantive issues such as the Second Amendment, abortion, trade, immigration, his own tax policies, and other matters.I don't think either dogs on cars or 30 yr old whinings from rent control recipients constitutes investigative journalism. But I do think they both represent an anal press corp with an agenda. And the agenda is to keep the socialists in power.
When we start to hear a federal case made out of things like how Trump carried his dogs on the roof of his car, then maybe that will be a sign that the press will be getting serious about looking into him. They haven't been so far. "Stories and rumors about things Trump has done 30 years ago" don't really constitute investigative journalism in my book.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 01, 2016, 12:53:48 PM
That's all likely true.
Trump, however, has admitted giving politicians money as effective bribes.
Clinton is still only alleged to have received such "donations".
Not excusing Clinton at all, trust me. But Trumps past as the admitted (proud even) payor of bribes makes him a very poor candidate to take on someone accused of receiving them.
There is no moral difference between someone who buys politicians and a politician who has been bought. Without those willing to buy political favours, politicians would not be able to sell them.
I find it hypocritical of Trump's supporters to say Clinton is corrupt, yet refuse to admit their God-King is just as corrupt, if not more so.
Obviously you've never been in business where you need to curry favor (or at lease avoid adversity) in order to get your project "approved." Of course, in the history of the world only Trump has made political donations in the course of doing business.
Post by: JeffDG on June 01, 2016, 12:56:44 PM
Obviously you've never been in business where you need to curry favor (or at lease avoid adversity) in order to get your project "approved." Of course, in the history of the world only Trump has made political donations in the course of doing business.Yet other people in the same business (casino real-estate) seem to be more successful than Donald is without such bribes being paid.
Post by: Little Joe on June 01, 2016, 01:17:41 PM
Yet other people in the same business (casino real-estate) seem to be more successful than Donald is without such bribes being paid.Can you document that assertion? And even if that is true (I have no reason to doubt you), there are many reasons why one venture may be more successful than another. Perhaps Trump needed to pay more for better results.