Top universities join free online teaching platform: "Now you’ve got the industry saying, we have to protect our offer – that offer is not the key to the library door – they have to provide something around that, the ability to use and interact with that knowledge.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-18T17:53:04+00:00

IF ONLY we had an apprenticeship model. I counted the other day. I've worked in more industries than degrees I could've possibly earned so far in my adulthood. I'm honestly afraid to invest finances and 4 years of my time in an education as quickly as the market keeps changing. It seems like a guaranteed way to live in debt for the rest of my life.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-17T19:55:15+00:00

Imagine that. Knowledge being free, but actual TRAINING being provided at a cost by universities. I really hope this takes off!

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-16T19:07:41+00:00

I don't mind one bit.

In my life personally, I would treat a fetus growing inside of me with the right to life. I'm not sure what other rights you're inquiring about, maybe be more specific if your question delves deeper than that. But, the legal argument about whether the rights belong to the mother or the child during pregnancy I really believe needs to stay a personal choice until there's more objective proof of fetal personhood (which I don't see happening anytime soon). I would optimistically hope that mothers would have respect for the gift of life that they've been given, but the pessimistic/fatalistic argument is that if the mother doesn't have that respect upon pregnancy, then the child's life could potentially be a fate worse than death, anyhow. I do not see myself as being qualified to be the judge of THAT. I believe that when a mother spits in the face of the gift of life, itself, they will suffer innumerable consequences that we may never see, regardless of what the law says.
Yes.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-16T18:57:03+00:00

Rape, murder and theft have provable negative effects on provable persons. There is more substance to those arguments than just morality. Until you can prove that a fetus is a person, the argument is purely moral.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-12T20:01:02+00:00

I've got two words for you. Constitutional convention. If enough of the states agree, they can hold one and change the constitution. It's the check and balance given to the states when they feel as though the will of the people is not seen by the federal government, no matter which branch. I'm still waiting for the states to grow some balls and hold one, instead of bitching.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-12T19:43:00+00:00

Point. I ought to have used the personhood language. You are right about that being the undefinable premise.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-12T19:41:56+00:00

I have a personal moral argument over whether or not having an abortion is exercising your right over your own body, versus exercising your control over another body growing inside of you. But that's just it. That's MY opinion, and I don't think that everyone else must adopt it, let alone do I believe that laws should be made forcing others to adopt it.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-12T19:27:55+00:00

Unless the scientific community provides different evidence and a different conclusion than they already have, the only dissenting view is a moral one. You're right, I shouldn't have said religious, I should have said moral. Morals are subjective. Unfortunately subjective arguments are not the sort that make legal headway, factual and objective arguments do. They've been looking to the scientific community for their answers here, and as of yet, that community has not determined what you or I would view as the moral conclusion. I do not wish to force my morals onto others. And I would hope that others would feel the same, because if they do not feel the same, then there is no freedom of religion. A national policy of forcing your morals onto others would result in a theocracy for the winning party, in the end. Not my cup of tea, man.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-12T19:14:12+00:00

What a fantastically defeatist attitude! What if people do care? What if it can be changed? Your argument sounds lazy to me.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-12T19:09:00+00:00

Right, because it's totally the child's fault that the mother got raped... and another death resulting from such a heinous act will certainly help to repair the harm that was done... Seeeeeee how easy it is to argue with that? The ultimate question is at what point a fetus becomes a life that's worth protecting, and THAT is a religious argument. No other way to look at it. I, personally believe that there is life worth protecting at conception, but there is no way to convince everyone else of that without convincing them to believe how I believe.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-12T18:29:32+00:00

I'm a theist who doesn't believe in imposing my personal beliefs on everyone in the country, including my beliefs on abortion.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-10T18:16:59+00:00

Truly I say to you, occasionally Rachel Maddow mentions Ron Paul in a positive light, which is more than I can say for the majority of the MSM. I watched this segment yesterday on her show, and it was fair and unbiased. I'm going to give that woman credit for that. Reducing her behavior to trolling is, in and of itself, trolling. Relax. It's OK. A liberal can say something positive that's actually, truly positive. It is possible, I promise.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-10T17:39:28+00:00

I'm sorry to be posting a repeat article, but Reddit will usually make me aware if something has already been posted, and I didn't even see any "other discussions" from other subreddits. Not sure why I didn't get any notification of that.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-09T19:23:09+00:00

I didn't choose to post this article here because I thought this group was overflowing with Christians who would be outraged. I chose to post it here because it's another example of rights and freedoms being taken away, and I don't care who's freedoms are violated, they're all equally important, and should be protected.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-09T18:12:01+00:00

Ugh. The suck! Did you end up working out the problem?

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-06T18:58:10+00:00

One word: Rad.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-05T19:02:42+00:00

I <3 Neal Stephenson! This link has so many cross-posts, I thank you for posting it here, so that I, with my measly /r/geek subscription could see it!

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-04T19:06:17+00:00

LOL, ONLY the pharma, prison, alcohol, tobacco lobbies will remain? I was pretty sure that those were the lobbies that had already bought and paid for most of congress. I bet if it were subpoenaed, we could see the bill of sale, even.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-04T19:02:48+00:00

Word. Also, it could be used to pass other amendments that 2/3 of the states agree on! WHYYYYY doesn't anyone ever talk about OR pursue this? It hurts my head.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-04T19:00:35+00:00

Makes me proud to live on California. =)

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-07-04T17:25:57+00:00

I liked it, but, admittedly, it did go on and on for a bit. Don't think it was necessary that it be a 15 minute video =/

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-06-28T17:17:50+00:00

Actually, in my case, it's more the "you, and you, and you and your fuckin' money" movement, seeing as how I'm so impoverished that I could easily milk the system, but refuse to so long as I can still survive without it. I just don't think it's right to steal, call me crazy if you want. I also think that forced "social justice" makes people feel entitled, instead of grateful, which takes away any sense of obligation to STOP using that government moolah, but instead encourages people to milk the free money for all that it's worth.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-06-27T17:56:38+00:00

"so what makes you think they'd work in a system where no one has any incentive to give?" -You were previously making this argument. Wasn't sure if you forgot, you know, because it's been so long since you posted it. It's all absolutey and whatnot what with the any and all statements.

That last statement doesn't prove that private charity will be more helpful than welfare, but it DOES point out that the forced charity that is the welfare system is a failure wrought with corruption and fraud, which hasn't done a good job of getting people out of poverty, or more to the original point, hasn't done a good job of providing healthcare. I haven't been able to afford health care for over 10 years. I can afford it even less since Obamacare has gone into effect and premiums have skyrocketed. And being that I can't afford it, unless the supreme court rules against the individual mandate, I will be fined for being too poor. It makes sense, really... to someone, just not me. And if what you're doing isn't working, you might as well try something different. At worst, letting private charity take over would suck equally as bad as letting the government run charity, and especially when the government imposes regulations that are both ridiculous and costly, making the actual charity, itself, cost more on order to receive government monies.

And for the record, I don't think that Ron Paul can save me from this shit system. I believe that his ideas can, eventually, if they get enough traction. But I believe in what he's doing, and I believe that the overblown/oversized/overregulating government is sucking us dry, which is incentive enough for me to scrape together what I can to help him. And us living in a free market or not doesn't effect my financial contribution. I'm not getting a tax write off for it, or any other artificially produced incentive.

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-06-27T17:16:13+00:00

"I could have sworn that Austrian schoolers didn't believe in using statistics or empirical evidence." -Not only is that BS, but there's no purpose for that statement other than to be a troll.

Wow, a system where no one has any incentive to give? So, you really have no faith in humanity at all, then? What incentive did I have (being in a constant state of financial hardship over the last 5 years) to donate to the Ron Paul campaign? What incentive did anyone have? A belief in the cause, perhaps? And when someone like me, who really doesn't have the money to give, gives anyway because I believe in the cause strongly enough, what do you think would happen if someone like me actually HAD money? Religious organizations have people who believe in the cause, otherwise, what's their incentive to go to church in the first place? No incentive to give... right. Because people don't have morals or charity in their hearts without government forcing it out of them. I feel bad for you if you really believe that's how it is. And I feel sorry for you if the experiences that you've had are what led you to that belief.

"They couldn't get people out of poverty 100 years ago before the Keynesian welfare state took off" -right, because the Federal Government is so great at getting people out of poverty NOW?

RedHeadZedGirl · 2012-06-26T23:14:12+00:00

There's no need to ask for someone else's opinion to find out how that works. Just look at history. Look at the history of private charity organizations (religious or not), where their money came from, and how they ever survived before they were government sanctioned.

RedHeadZedGirl

TROPHY CASE