VSU petition (1 Viewer)

[LaraB]

The point of VSU is that the students will pay for the useful services and discard the ones which aren't.

yes but the problem is it'll be done on a majority basis - say for example 51% vote to get rid of free legal advice but 49% say to keep it, that's just bs because just coz it's not a popular service doesn't make it a useless one..

plus i don't see many uni students, seemingly those pro vsu, giving half a shit about other people because of course, their little world will be safe... when eventually everything will have an impact upon you at some stage

ps - thanx for posting a response totally unrelated to the context of the post ignoring the fact that i was correct in posting what i did and wikiwiki replied seemingly quite happily... the post wasn't arguing a point, it was clarifying what i meant since you rudely requested that i clarify it, even though wikiwiki who was the person the post was in reply to seemed to understand it....

 

[withoutaface]

uh..there's incentives to vote and i don't see anyone on here saying elections are pointless and a load of bs coz there's incentives..

incentives don't undermine the process and the reason for the process.

That is completely different. In elections there is more than one way to vote, and many of them would be against the current student organisation's wishes (eg Liberal candidates). If there were incentives being offered and there were two petitions being signed, both a pro and an anti, then there would be less of a problem.

 

[walrusbear]

This is the worst case of left wing arrogance ever.

You CANNOT say that what people want is not what is right - you are saying that you are superior to other people because YOU AND ONLY YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR OTHERS.

People have the right to make decisions and the responsibility of accepting the consequences.

there is nothing arrogant about pushing for social quality on collective grounds
in fact, the greatest arrogance in this issue lies on the side of the government

i think it is very fair to say that most people don't HAVE an opinion on VSU - why is there an assumption that a majority actually want the policy??

i've actually noticed that the only people who DO want the policy enforced are those who believe they will be better off financially, have a zealous belief in user pay systems and the government itself (well - some of them).

 

[LaraB]

If 49% of students are willing to pay fees for free legal advice it will almost certainly remain. If 2% of students are then it will not.

so tell me then, where are the barriers going to be for what is acceptable and what is not? and what is your basis for that specific determination?

its not as simple as that..

 

[withoutaface]

you obviously haven't walked through church street mall or thru bondi junction station then - there are petitions for both. just coz you haven't come acorss them doesn't mean they don't exist.

there is more than one way to 'vote' in this situation so it is the same basic principle.

If a polling booth were offering lollypops to those who voted Labor and nothing to those who voted otherwise, would that be wrong?

Of course it would.

And I was at Bondi Jct yesterday, I saw no petitions, and we are referring to what is going on AT UWS, and what is being offered for supporting a particular p.o.v. AT UWS, not elsewhere.

 

[LaraB]

haha u have to give incentive for ppl to sign it

haven't the faggots who started making petitions to get their geography teacher fired in yr 9 and are still making them now worked out that there futility

uh..there's incentives to vote and i don't see anyone on here saying elections are pointless and a load of bs coz there's incentives..

incentives don't undermine the process and the reason for the process.

 

[withoutaface]

no that is not my whole argument. I'll repeat.. again... that i simply said that the majority is not always 'right'.. i don't see how you manage to translate that to 'people don't know what is best"

no it's not the only definition.

what is 'best' for a body of uni students is also seen by a lot of people as what will lead to the greated benefit for the greatest number of people.

following that logic, you could say that the stalinist regime was 'best' because STalin was happy and thought this was what was best, and thus it must be true.

so what, following your definition of what is 'best' it's ok for people to go on murdering rampages because that's what they believe is best for them and they have a right not to care about teh impact on others because that's the only definition you consider exists of what is best?

Please refer to Godwin's law. Although you mentioned Stalin and not Hitler, the principle remains the same.

The majority is not always right, that's why it should be up to individuals to decide what they spend their money on.

 

[withoutaface]

no it wouldn't be wrong - if people are naive enough to take that as a reason to vote, i say go for it. It's no less valid than peopel falling for bullshit promises made by politicians prior to elections which everyone knows will either never be carried through, or amended to much through the process that it may as well be a different aim.

didn't realise one say at bondi junction meant you could assume what occured there every other day of the year....

well.. since you say we're talking about UWS only and not VSU as a whole - stop arguing. you don't go to UWS

go have a bitch about it in relation to Usyd instead

Hahahahahhahahahhaha with that post you just confirmed that you have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and, combined with the invocation of Godwin's law, you lose.

Now if you'll excuse me I have a class.

 

[LaraB]

This is the worst case of left wing arrogance ever.

You CANNOT say that what people want is not what is right - you are saying that you are superior to other people because YOU AND ONLY YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR OTHERS.

People have the right to make decisions and the responsibility of accepting the consequences.

um no i'm not. i'm saying that a lot of people are concerned solely with the impact upon themselves and don't give a stuff about the greater impact, and that the majority doesn't necessarily = the 'right' decision. i did not at any point say the majority is never right.

if you can quote where i said i know what is best for everyone and that what people wasnt is necessarily what is wrong then you have a right to make that claim...

but since i know i didn't say or intend to infer that then you dont.

 

[LaraB]

That is completely different. In elections there is more than one way to vote, and many of them would be against the current student organisation's wishes (eg Liberal candidates). If there were incentives being offered and there were two petitions being signed, both a pro and an anti, then there would be less of a problem.

you obviously haven't walked through church street mall or thru bondi junction station then - there are petitions for both. just coz you haven't come acorss them doesn't mean they don't exist.

there is more than one way to 'vote' in this situation so it is the same basic principle.

 

[walrusbear]

People will have the choice to join the union?

so what difference will it make to them?

Those that want to join will join. Those that don't, won't.

If you can't convince people of the value of student unions (which is implied by the fact that most people think VSU will equal a deathknell for student unions) then they don't have a right to funding.

the user pay system (VSU) will signal the end of unions - because unions cannot operate without collective support

the problem with convincing people of the value of student unions is that it isn't easily quantifiable - particularly on an individualist level.
most won't join because they cannot easily recognise its value.

what you are suggesting is that people know what is good for them... which doesn't really stand given the high level of apathy and ignorance in the country.

 

[walrusbear]

just coz the majority is not always right doesn't mean individuals always are either. It then just goes back to what i alreeady said that individual decisions impact on others...

you're are very naive if you honestly believe we all can function in isolation and can do what we want without impacting others....

don't get too heated in this argument, it has extended for a long time

the proVSU camp functions on neoliberal values and there seems to be no meeting in this argument

 

[LaraB]

Your whole argument is that people don't know what is best. People have the right not to give a stuff about anyone other than themselves. That is what is best for them. That is the only definition 'best' can be given.

no that is not my whole argument. I'll repeat.. again... that i simply said that the majority is not always 'right'.. i don't see how you manage to translate that to 'people don't know what is best"

no it's not the only definition.

what is 'best' for a body of uni students is also seen by a lot of people as what will lead to the greated benefit for the greatest number of people.

following that logic, you could say that the stalinist regime was 'best' because STalin was happy and thought this was what was best, and thus it must be true.

so what, following your definition of what is 'best' it's ok for people to go on murdering rampages because that's what they believe is best for them and they have a right not to care about teh impact on others because that's the only definition you consider exists of what is best?

 

[LaraB]

If a polling booth were offering lollypops to those who voted Labor and nothing to those who voted otherwise, would that be wrong?

Of course it would.

And I was at Bondi Jct yesterday, I saw no petitions, and we are referring to what is going on AT UWS, and what is being offered for supporting a particular p.o.v. AT UWS, not elsewhere.

no it wouldn't be wrong - if people are naive enough to take that as a reason to vote, i say go for it. It's no less valid than peopel falling for bullshit promises made by politicians prior to elections which everyone knows will either never be carried through, or amended to much through the process that it may as well be a different aim.

didn't realise one say at bondi junction meant you could assume what occured there every other day of the year....

well.. since you say we're talking about UWS only and not VSU as a whole - stop arguing. you don't go to UWS

go have a bitch about it in relation to Usyd instead

 

[GTR]

just coz some of the money goes to the queer association or whatever it's called doesn't make the whole practice useless....

Not only does our hard earned go towards those faggots in the Queer Assosciation, but towards other groups such as the Muslim society, and also towards printing extremist publications like "The Western Onion", which is only ever good when there is no toilet paper.

Furthermore, you have shitholes like the River Bar at Parramatta campus with their "subsidised" food. I would hardly call that slop they sell there "food". It isn't cheap either, with prices comparable to shops outside of the university, but much inferior quality wise.

The days of student unions are numerable. I would love to see all these student union associations and bodies collapse.

 

[LaraB]

Please refer to Godwin's law. Although you mentioned Stalin and not Hitler, the principle remains the same.

The majority is not always right, that's why it should be up to individuals to decide what they spend their money on.

just coz the majority is not always right doesn't mean individuals always are either. It then just goes back to what i alreeady said that individual decisions impact on others...

you're are very naive if you honestly believe we all can function in isolation and can do what we want without impacting others....

 

[LaraB]

Don't make me invoke Godwin's law.

Murdering rampages come with a disincentive: the threat of retribution. If a person decides that the utility value outweighs the costs, then yes it would be the best decision FOR THEM.

What the hell does this have to do with VSU?

VSU doesn't kill anything: it gives people choice.

you totally missed my point
I am not saying that such an action will not be best for that individual..

i am refuting your assertion is that the only definition of what is best is what is most beneficial for an individual.

my point is that what is best is better defined by the total sum of societal benefit and a murdering rampage may be seen as beneficial in the individuals eyes but it cuases greater harm to the collective group than benefit toteh individual. so its is viewed as not what is 'best'.

it's called an analogy... i didn't say it related to the content of the VSU debate

VSU only increases choice for the more affluent, who are the minority numbers wise... it reduces choice for the less wealthy and other lower social classes just as does virtually every other current government policy so the best result is not achieved for the collective group.

 

[LaraB]

don't get too heated in this argument, it has extended for a long time

the proVSU camp functions on neoliberal values and there seems to be no meeting in this argument

lol i'm not ... just annoying when someone reads a post which has a clear literal meaning and then choose to interpret it to support their view when clearly that is not the meaning of the post and then 'accuses' me of saying xyz when i didn't.... the best is when i'm told i said point a, then ask to be quoted syaing it and simply get another post of their interpretation of what my initial post was....

haha even better when someone tells me to stop talking about VSU as a whole and we're only talking about UWS when they'renot a UWS student and i am so i'm much more likely to be aware of my own uni's union operation and their functions

 

[LaraB]

ok..so who decides what is best for society...you?

what "choice" is reduced for the lower social classes...?

in simplistic, succinct terms - their general choice to use facilities which are affordable/accessible... be it something as small as photocopying to someothing more significant like centrelink or legal advice.

what is best for society is not ireefutably determinable - i never said it was. You can stop with the childish retorts such as "who decides what is best, you?" because clearly from my posts i am saying that individual opinion will not = what is the best for greater society.

what is best for society, in basic terms, will be most clearly determined by economic and socio-economic states/conditions resulting from policies or practices being implemented, combined with census style documents and the like

 

[LaraB]

So - a small group of people will determine what is best for society?

what 'small group' are you talking about?

because i was referring to data and opinins colated from the entire populace.. id on't see how the entire populace may be construed as a 'small group'...