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.

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.

i dont recall saying anything about university revenue though.. and to suggest you would get the same education if you pay less is to overlook the ripple effects of a lower tuition rate. e.g. increase in students, increase enrolment, increase in necessary staff/resources/etc from the school

Originally Posted by lanju

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.

rednecks? what.. are you making up your own arguments the providing rebuttals for them

Originally Posted by lanju

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? .

MORE PEOPLE WILL NOT ENROLL !!!!!

How many time do I have to repeat myself. Jesus Christ.

I have said it before, go read the other pages.

There will no be an increase in enrollment because govt doesn't have unlimited funds and the university has limited space, limited spots. To get in you will need to have better marks than the other guy.

Inflation is increasing year by year. It is driving tuition costs.

I haven't even call others as rednecks.

Originally Posted by EngStud

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/

Look:

You made arguments for what you believe in. You seem to want to continue arguing for them. If you don't believe these arguments would hold up to a democratic judgement, then stop arguing for them.

The only "straw" here is your beliefs which seem like they wouldn't hold up to a nationwide democratic judgement.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Look:

You made arguments for what you believe in. You seem to want to continue arguing for them. If you don't believe these arguments would hold up to a democratic judgement, then stop arguing for them.

The only "straw" here is your beliefs which seem like they wouldn't hold up to a nationwide democratic judgement.

Attacking a position, when the opponent is not arguing for that position is the Straw man fallacy.

You're creating this imaginary position that I somehow want to tax everyone who is rich.

Arguing like a politician and arguing like an intellectual is two different things.

If you don't want to stop committing logical fallacies, that's your problem not mine.

If people are dumb enough not to see why attacking an imaginary position is wrong, I can't do anything about that.

Truth is not determined by the majority, it's determined by empirical evidence and sound logic. It's up to the majority to accept truth or stay inside a cave for the rest of their lives.

Look buddy,

You've made your point. Tax the corporations more. Legalize marijuana.

And you've clearly expressed your dislike with arguments that don't support you by reporting them as "offensive" and voting others down. The mods will handle you shortly. As for your outbursts of anger with offensive language (censored out or not) I think you've proven your argument capabilities to us... Quote your favourite "how to argue" article that you googled a few days ago or whenever... But at this point, we're all accepting your position as "collect money from corporations and collect money from legal sales of marijuana".

Now go preach your good idea OFF Macinsiders and see how real people respond. You know, IRL?

Originally Posted by mike_302

Look buddy,

You've made your point. Tax the corporations more. Legalize marijuana.

And you've clearly expressed your dislike with arguments that don't support you by reporting them as "offensive" and voting others down. The mods will handle you shortly. As for your outbursts of anger with offensive language (censored out or not) I think you've proven your argument capabilities to us... Quote your favourite "how to argue" article that you googled a few days ago or whenever... But at this point, we're all accepting your position as "collect money from corporations and collect money from legal sales of marijuana".

Actually, taxing corporations and legalizing marijuana were a few suggestions that could raise revenue needed to cover a bigger part of tuition to reduce costs.

Voting others down ? What's wrong with that ?

You know what's offensive ? Bashing me and calling me selfish and lazy or a "Stereotypical engineer" . Not even sure what the heck that means, I'm in electrical engineering, don't group me with you.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Now go preach your good idea OFF Macinsiders and see how real people respond. You know, IRL?

It's funny coming from the guy who actually started arguing against people who just wanted to express themselves.

You don't feel like the Big guy anymore when someone is standing up to you , ey?

Big, little, think what you want.

I don't think my background in Engineering & Society gives me the license to say I'm more right than anyone, but it has opened my eyes to the way people in straight engineering argue, vs. those with a background in the less-technical, societal aspects of the world. Not sure where "lazy" came from. Stereotypical comes from the stereotype that engineers think only about the technical aspects of the world with a "logic solves all problems, that's it that's all".

Note to other engineers: No offense meant to you if you're not in Society. I'm not putting anyone below me by saying that it has opened my eyes. Perhaps you are already cognizant of this issue.

Originally Posted by mike_302

Stereotypical comes from the stereotype that engineers think only about the technical aspects of the world with a "logic solves all problems, that's it that's all".

This is totally irrelevant. IT doesn't matter if its a doctor, a garbage handler or a serial killer arguing.

You judge the argument by what it is not by judging the person.

Originally Posted by EngStud

http://www.simplyhired.ca/a/jobs/list/c-apple (that's just a few examples, I could get you a list of other foreign tech companies and eng. firms hiring in Canada)

I'm still waiting for the examples of Corporations who had to relocate because of a higher corporate tax.

Thanks for providing that link. I think it proves me right that the innovation/engineering for Apple does not occur in Canada. Those positions are related to sales/tech supports, or field testing. Don't even try to tell me that is Engineering.

This is going to be the 3rd time and last time I'm going to say this. I never said that jobs have been lost due to corporate tax alone, that would be absurd. However I said, "if it is simply more profitable for a company to operate in another country, it is highly likely that they will relocate. It definitely won't attract new companies to start up in Canada either." Obviously higher corporate taxes will cut into their profits, and won't attract new startups in Canada.

Originally Posted by EngStud

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.

Originally Posted by EngStud

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.

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.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you that US and NATO will defend Canada. There is no question that they will defend us. My argument is that it will still cost us money, the US or NATO expect something in return. You don't necessarily save money by cutting military spending. How many times do I have to say this? You can't get something for nothing. Geez.

Look back at my original response to "robots". Nowhere did I ever mention F35s [moderator edit]. I believe you were the first one to mention the term F35.

Originally Posted by Allan

Thanks for providing that link. I think it proves me right that the innovation/engineering for Apple does not occur in Canada. Those positions are related to sales/tech supports, or field testing. Don't even try to tell me that is Engineering.

OUch......
Here's proof, if you actually looked harder in that list. Testing is part of engineering. I'm in Electrical, I know a lot more than you do in that subject. Testing is a vital part of the design of anything electrical related.

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...rrentPage =69

Originally Posted by EngStud

OUch......
Here's proof, if you actually looked harder in that list. Testing is part of engineering. I'm in Electrical, I know a lot more than you do in that subject. Testing is a vital part of the design of anything electrical related.

http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...rrentPage =69

Yes, I saw that position also. I was literally expecting you to reply with this. As it clearly states in the listing, "Your focus will be testing the telephony (phone, sms, data, etc) functionality of the iPhone."

What I'm talking about is actual innovation/engineering/design in Canada, such as creating new products and ideas. Not simply testing an iPhone (that was designed in the US). These product testers are hired in every country where Apple launches its products. It has nothing to do with the talent and quality of education in Canada.

Originally Posted by Allan

Yes, I saw that position also. I was literally expecting you to reply with this. As it clearly states in the listing, "Your focus will be testing the telephony (phone, sms, data, etc) functionality of the iPhone."

What I'm talking about is actual innovation/engineering/design in Canada, such as creating new products and ideas. Not simply testing an iPhone (that was designed in the US). These product testers are hired in every country where Apple launches its products. It has nothing to do with the talent and quality of education in Canada.

That job requires the tester to have an EE degree. It's not in every country. Apple sells in Morocco, but that job isn't there.

Testing is part of design. I am in EE, testing is vital to design, whether its software or hardware related.

You're arguing my point anyway. I was right when I say Apple is hiring engineers in Canada.

Originally Posted by EngStud

That job requires the tester to have an EE degree. It's not in every country. Apple sells in Morocco, but that job isn't there.

Testing is part of design. I am in EE, testing is vital to design, whether its software or hardware related.

Originally Posted by EngStud

You're arguing my point anyway. I was right when I say Apple is hiring engineers in Canada.

That site is for job opportunities. If Apple didn't list anything for Morocco, that means someone is already performing that job function there, and they don't need to hire.

This position is a technician job. Don't let job recruiters trick you into thinking this is actual engineering. If you ever check job listings, there are many non-engineering jobs where employers require engineering degrees.

As stated in my original argument, "I think that much of the innovation in Engineering/Technology right now is happening outside of Canada. Think Apple, Samsung, Google, Amazon, etc." I don't think you have disproved this.

Originally Posted by Allan

That site is for job opportunities. If Apple didn't list anything for Morocco, that means someone is already performing that job function there, and they don't need to hire.

This position is a technician job. Don't let job recruiters trick you into thinking this is actual engineering. If you ever check job listings, there are many non-engineering jobs where employers require engineering degrees.

As stated in my original argument, "I think that much of the innovation in Engineering/Technology right now is happening outside of Canada. Think Apple, Samsung, Google, Amazon, etc." I don't think you have disproved this.

Much of the innovation ? So what ? I don't need to disaprove that statement since it is irrelevant to a student's debt problem.

You're comparing Canada 30ish million population to US 340 million????

I don't know why we are arguing about engineering jobs. They are a tiny fraction of jobs in Canada.

Let's get back to the original issue.

You don't want to raise corporate tax by 3% to its original state because it's going to kill jobs ? Really ? 3% ?

This is what I was suggesting, but your Red Herrings are making this thread go off topic.