No one here bashed the design. Your argument using the Avro Arrow as a basis was bashed.

Originally Posted by mike_302

No one here bashed the design. Your argument using the Avro Arrow as a basis was bashed.

"The Avro Arrow was cancelled before it was ever really introduced to the world. Despite this, the above-user will now try to convince us that Canada should make more planes like this"

Let's analyze your claim (the above).

1) I did not say Canada should produce Avro Arrows, I said Canada should start making their own planes, which will create more jobs and increase Canada's national reputation. I used the Avro Arrow as an example of Canada's engineering capabilities vis-à-vis the world during the 50s.

2) So what if it was cancelled ? It was the fastest plane of its time. This proves that Canadians can get together and engineer a new generation plane. India, Korea and Indonesia are starting to design fifth generation planes.
Why not Canada ? Why buy a SINGLE engine jet that has communications problems it he Arctic, when Canada could make its own jet.

Originally Posted by EngStud

Canada's wars? Sorry, I just had to come and rebuke your nonsense.

If you want to fight religious wars, go ahead. I'll be happy to pay for your Crusade. (sarcasm)

Canada has no interest in the Middle East. Canada is in NATO (which is more important the the UN, get your facts right). Under that alliance, any country must defend the other if one is attacked. Each country has to help in terms of their ability to help.

For example, Canada is not expected to deploy big troops in Afghanistan because it only has 68 000 active military personnel.

If Canada gets attacked, Nato or No Nato, America will defend Canada because they would rather have us than the Russians sharing the biggest undefended border in the world.

Anyway if you want to defend a country vast like Canada you need to create pockets of insurgents ready to fight any foreign forces and Canada's space to their advantage. That means Canada has to invest in asymmetrical warfare and play dirty.

Replace CF-18s with f-35 ? Are you kidding me ? Do you know that the F35 they are buying is single engine and they face communications problem in the Arctic. The F15 Silent Eagle would have been a much better deal, it has a much cheaper price tag.

Canada should make it's own fighter jets and bombers. It made the Avro Arrow (fastest plane at it's time). And if you say Canada can't do it, that's not much patriotic of you is it ?

Yes, you're right, I meant NATO. However, I'm not aware that Canada ever fights religious wars. Your comments about expectations in Afghanistan and the US defending us, perfectly highlights my argument earlier. The US has a stake in our security, but do you really think the US will do this for free? If Canada has a stake in Afghanistan and other wars, you think other countries will just offer their military services for free to Canada? Other countries will expect something in return, be it direct payments, trade deals, etc.

I never said anything about F-35s in my previous post. Obviously the media has portrayed them in a negative light. I think the choice should rest with our military commanders. Honestly, what do ordinary civilians really know about fighter jet technology? My main point is that our aging CF-18s need to be replaced. Most of us don't even drive cars that old. At the end of the day, I personally don't believe the government is overspending in the military.

I don't have anything against Canadians getting into the business of making fighter jets. It would definitely be a challenge to compete against well-experienced companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

No one was bashing the Avro Arrow, and I think, as the stereotypical engineer you are, you are blowing it's importance in this topic WAY out of proportion. It's 1 item you used to argue a point, and yet you're using it to paint a picture of anyone that's against your point, as unpatriotic and un-Canadian.

Originally Posted by Allan

Yes, you're right, I meant NATO. However, I'm not aware that Canada ever fights religious wars. Your comments about expectations in Afghanistan and the US defending us, perfectly highlights my argument earlier. The US has a stake in our security, but do you really think the US will do this for free? If Canada has a stake in Afghanistan and other wars, you think other countries will just offer their military services for free to Canada? Other countries will expect something in return, be it direct payments, trade deals, etc. Your one of those selfish people who don't want to spend any money, and expect others to do the work for you. I want to see how far you get in life.

A bunch of Christians with Bibles in a Muslim land looks like a religious war to me.

Anyway, The US will defend Canada just like China defended North Korea when Americas were near the Chinese border. Why? It's simple, from the US POV, Canada is closer to the US and much more stable than any country they've never shared a border with. If Canada gets invaded, the US and NATO will defend Canada.

So for you to raise a false alert with the F35 argument is wrong.

Anyway this is off topic, if you want to make an F35 thread feel free.

Originally Posted by Allan

I never said anything about F-35s in my previous post. Obviously the media has portrayed them in a negative light. I think the choice should rest with our military commanders. Honestly, what do ordinary civilians really know about fighter jet technology? My main point is that our aging CF-18s need to be replaced. Most of us don't even drive cars that old. At the end of the day, I personally don't believe the government is overspending in the military.

I don't have anything against Canadians getting into the business of making fighter jets. It would definitely be a challenge to compete against well-experienced companies such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Civilians design Fighter jets.... Civilians go to school and learn. This is the 21st century. The Internet is a hub of information. You take information from different sources (like generals... and aero-engineers...) and you make your mind up.

No your Main point was that F35 was a good replacement. Don't change your main argument to make it look like you're arguing for something reasonable.

Originally Posted by mike_302

No one was bashing the Avro Arrow, and I think, as the stereotypical engineer you are, you are blowing it's importance in this topic WAY out of proportion. It's 1 item you used to argue a point, and yet you're using it to paint a picture of anyone that's against your point, as unpatriotic and un-Canadian.

Well you sound like the typical far-right conservative who likes to defend rich people ,even when they're not attacked.

I'm still surprised you haven't labelled me as a socialist. However, that labeling would be quite accurate.

HA! I'm so far from the right, it's ridiculous. But I'm pretty confident that you can't just start making statements like "Just tax anyone and anything with money, more!". (Note: This statement should satisfy your need for an accurate definition of "Corporation", as I said "anything")

Doing so is ignorant of the systems within which everything exists... Which is why your solution seems like an engineering solution that is ignorant of a much larger society.

making education more accessible = lowering the value of your degree. think you're paying too much now? think about how many more credentials you would need to be competitive if education was less expensive

Originally Posted by mike_302

HA! I'm so far from the right, it's ridiculous. But I'm pretty confident that you can't just start making statements like "Just tax anyone and anything with money, more!". (Note: This statement should satisfy your need for an accurate definition of "Corporation", as I said "anything")

Doing so is ignorant of the systems within which everything exists... Which is why your solution seems like an engineering solution that is ignorant of a much larger society.

A corporation is not a thing or a person. It's an association that can do financial or physical operations an individual cannot. It's not physical, nor is it an individual.

"A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members."

Originally Posted by AlexBatt

making education more accessible = lowering the value of your degree. think you're paying too much now? think about how many more credentials you would need to be competitive if education was less expensive

McGill Engineering degree is just as good as a Mac Eng Degree, if not better.

You know the difference ? The McGill one costs less for Quebec students.

Increase govt spending on schools. How ? Get the corporate rate back to 12-14 %. It's now 11%.

Don't build unnecessary bridges or crack down on Marijuana. Legalize the drug and you won't be needed to spend that money needed to fight that war.

There are so MANY things you can do to increase revenue, it's unbelievable. I don't feel like listing all of them, I am getting tired right now of destroying over-night experts.

Originally Posted by EngStud

McGill Engineering degree is just as good as a Mac Eng Degree, if not better.

You know the difference ? The McGill one costs less for Quebec students.

Increase govt spending on schools. How ? Get the corporate rate back to 12-14 %. It's now 11%.

Don't build unnecessary bridges or crack down on Marijuana. Legalize the drug and you won't be needed to spend that money needed to fight that war.

There are so MANY things you can do to increase revenue, it's unbelievable. I don't feel like listing all of them, I am getting tired right now of destroying over-night experts.

i think you're oversimplifying. besides, i'm not arguing about reallocating funds. my point is that i don't think tuition should be as "affordable" as many students think it should be. i would prefer to see more opportunities to get money to finance schooling, but to lower tuition is to put the value of my degree in jeopardy

Then run for a government position. You've already outlined your platform: "Legalize marijuana, don't spend on 'unnecessary infrastructure', and increase corporate taxes". And you can go from city to city defining exactly what a corporation is, and tell people off for using a politically incorrect noun/pronoun to describe it.

You'll have the vote of every pot-smoking student in the country, and possibly inadvertently, you'll have the vote of every person who didn't get into school, or couldn't go, because they've been spending all their money on marijuana.

Originally Posted by AlexBatt

i think you're oversimplifying. besides, i'm not arguing about reallocating funds. my point is that i don't think tuition should be as "affordable" as many students think it should be. i would prefer to see more opportunities to get money to finance schooling, but to lower tuition is to put the value of my degree in jeopardy

Re-allocating funds would make tuition more "affordable" = less tuition costs.

No one is arguing to decrease university revenue... By the way, revenue means how much cash university gets.

Would your degree in sociology be worth the same ? Quite frankly I don't know.

Will you get the same education if you pay less ? Yes, inflation goes down and/or if the govt spends more money on education.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Then run for a government position. You've already outlined your platform: "Legalize marijuana, don't spend on 'unnecessary infrastructure', and increase corporate taxes". And you can go from city to city defining exactly what a corporation is, and tell people off for using a politically incorrect noun/pronoun to describe it.

You'll have the vote of every pot-smoking student in the country, and possibly inadvertently, you'll have the vote of every person who didn't get into school, or couldn't go, because they've been spending all their money on marijuana.

Straw Man fallacy. I'm not arguing for a personal candidacy.

This is a good place to learn on how to argue properly : http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Originally Posted by EngStud

Re-allocating funds would make tuition more "affordable" = less tuition costs.

No one is arguing to decrease university revenue...

By the way, revenue means how much cash university gets.

It seems that you're just ignoring the point some of the other posters are trying to make.
If tuition fee is cut, more people willl enroll right? If more people enroll there will be more people with undergrad degrees right? If there are more undergrad degrees then that will be the new high school degree right? And then you'll have to enroll in post-bac studies to make yourself more competitive. Obviously we all want to pay less for tuition but at what cost? I do agree with some of your points that inflation in general should try to be contained, but inflation in Canada already isn't all that high and the way our economy's set up there needs to be some level of inflation to keep it going. I think most importantly if you just try to acknowledge and listen to the opinions of others rather than labelling others as rednecks then others will also try to look at this fight for tuition thing more positively.