|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12746318)
Well, really, it's not just the term 'liberal' that's misleading ... what about 'arts' ? :) I know that 'art' can have many interpretations also ('the art of the deal' :) ), but, arts would generally suggest painting, music, and so on.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12745867)
Certainly an interesting question. I can see how there's crossover in the 'middle' between the extremes. I'm assuming your encounters with this situation relate to children not completing assignments - solving a math puzzle, for example? The question is, are they failing to complete because they are lazy or because they are struggling mentally to do the task?
For simplicity, can we make an assumption that we are talking about a basic 'manual' task, such as 'clearing the snow' or 'cleaning a room'? That would eliminate some elements of cognitive struggles. I would think 'reward' is a key element of this. So if, for example, I say to someone, "I'll give you $10 to clear the snow", then the first question may be, is the reward sufficient motivation? If they turn down $10 but accept $20, I think we've established (or got closer to establishing) they are lacking motivation and/or, are 'lazy'. Also, if they completed the task 'last week' but don't want to do it this week, that may suggest this is not a mental issue. Am I correctly understanding where you are going with this? |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 12746324)
But again that's a relatively recently usage of the word, as in "arts" versus "sciences". And even that distinction includes things like languages under the "arts" banner.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by robin1234
(Post 12746246)
i suppose you are aware, ‘liberal arts’ includes economics, chemistry, physics, biosciences (etc.) Maybe ‘liberal arts’ is not exactly what you meant in that imprecise diatribe? :rofl: |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12746332)
BA, BSc is how I've always thought of it. You graduate from university after studying History, French, Literature, etc - you get a BA. If you study Maths, Physics, Chemistry, you get a BSc. Although, I believe that Oxford/Cambridge give only BA's, even for science subjects. Presumably this is related to the historical usage you refer to.
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12746335)
Oh but he's the cool guy, donchaknow? With his MAGA hat and Trump hairdo. Sexy!
:rofl: |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by kimilseung
(Post 12746341)
Edgelord, thats what these kids call themselves these days!
https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/54997...-danger-01.jpg |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12746336)
Just about every wealthy person I know has a liberal arts undergrad at the very least.
|
Re: 2020 Election
|
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 12746336)
Just about every wealthy person I know has a liberal arts undergrad at the very least.
Originally Posted by robin1234
(Post 12746375)
True, but fortunately folks who are not wealthy can get a good liberal arts degree too. In NY, instate tuition in state schools is modest, and, I believe, even more affordable in other states. In NY, there are a dozen or more liberal arts colleges in the SUNY system.
Then doesn't that suggest 'most' degrees are in fact 'liberal arts' degrees? And that most colleges / universities are 'liberal arts' colleges? I guess 'engineering' is not listed, nor 'medicine', but regardless, it seems like such a broad label as to be somewhat redundant. In other words, when you say 'he has a liberal arts degree' vs 'he has a degree', what are you really achieving using the 'liberal arts' qualifier? |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by kimilseung
(Post 12746330)
Yes you are understanding broadly where I was going. My thoughts these days, are that to avoid severe social unrest, as the economy continues to change, that a minimum income is needed, and that will remove any need to make such categories of worthy and unworthy beneficiaries. It would fit in with the "gig" economy that many younger people are adapting to, I think it would benefit the arts and creative small entrepreneurs. I dont expect it to be widely supported by all sectors of society, but it is where my thought are going these days.
So trying to fit that broader concept into this discussion about 'laziness' ... If you offer two people some reward for doing a task - shoveling snow - the one who volunteers for the task would seem to deserve more reward than the one who chooses not to bother. You may give the 'other' person some basic amount for subsistence, but it needs to be less than the 'working' amount for the system to function. Would you advocate that both the working person and the non-working person should receive the same 'reward' (pay/income)? And if so, how do you get people to do all the unappealing jobs that are out there? Do you anticipate that people will voluntarily go out and shovel snow, or stand at a grocery store checkout all day, or work on a production line, when they could receive the same monetary reward by staying home? |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12746499)
So establishing a 'baseline' income may be appropriate, but that baseline income needs to be lower than a basic job income, for practical reasons.
So trying to fit that broader concept into this discussion about 'laziness' ... If you offer two people some reward for doing a task - shoveling snow - the one who volunteers for the task would seem to deserve more reward than the one who chooses not to bother. You may give the 'other' person some basic amount for subsistence, but it needs to be less than the 'working' amount for the system to function. Would you advocate that both the working person and the non-working person should receive the same 'reward' (pay/income)? And if so, how do you get people to do all the unappealing jobs that are out there? Do you anticipate that people will voluntarily go out and shovel snow, or stand at a grocery store checkout all day, or work on a production line, when they could receive the same monetary reward by staying home? |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by robtuck
(Post 12746011)
Interestingly, to me, family is pretty much a small version of Socialism - we care for children, not expect them to go off and earn their own way, because we know for a period they need to be educated and probably can't compete very effectively when they can only crawl around and fail to use a common language with anyone else in the workplace.
In some cases, adults within the family unit may well stay at home to enable another to earn the crust - people accept the need to do something for the greater good of the "family". Generally speaking, while the children in a family unit eventually have the chance to shine on their own, there still remains a support network in place, right up to an including inheriting everything, which may have been through no input they gave personally. Healthcare is provided free at the point of need - children are not charged for the application of a plaster, or for needing a bed for a couple of days when they have the flu or a cold. Given that (and yes, it's a stupid equivalence) it's not odd that some forms of Socialist policy may be appealing to the masses. Equally, each family is more than happy to compete with others for the available resources, and in any Communist State you can see Elites form and corruption become rampant. Therefore, Free Market Policies also have many supporters. Both are in our instinct - fight to survive, care for those around us. It's my personal conclusion that Extremes of Right and Left are always doomed to fail, thanks to Human Nature. The trick is building a compelling case of a mix - that doesn't mean being in the middle, it means testing out policies to see what real impact they have, and judging them by how Society changes for the better or worse. |
Re: 2020 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 12746457)
As I confessed earlier, I had always misunderstood the meaning of 'liberal arts'. Given the meaning I now understand - to include all the 'core subjects', and specifically
Then doesn't that suggest 'most' degrees are in fact 'liberal arts' degrees? And that most colleges / universities are 'liberal arts' colleges? I guess 'engineering' is not listed, nor 'medicine', but regardless, it seems like such a broad label as to be somewhat redundant. In other words, when you say 'he has a liberal arts degree' vs 'he has a degree', what are you really achieving using the 'liberal arts' qualifier? What is generally understood to NOT be liberal arts is vocational studies, professional studies, and the applied sciences. For instance, if you want to be a medical doctor, you’d probably do a four-year pre-med (liberal arts) then med school (professional training, not liberal arts.) My daughter studied geology (liberal art) then went to grad school to study environmental engineering (not liberal arts.) I know, it’s a bit arbitrary. The liberal arts college I worked at created a computer sciences undergraduate department and major in the late 90’s. A lot of the faculty said it didn’t fit in a liberal arts curriculum, I don’t know. |
Re: 2020 Election
I like the irony of how it is a term used to complain about useless education, by those who require some education in what the term means.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 2:26 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.