135
136

Dalhousie suspends 13 dentistry students from clinic amid Facebook scandal (cbc.ca)

Drone9 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]thencaapawardgoestoAlberta 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (18子コメント)

They spent almost 8 years and tons of money to become dentists.

Why is that important?

I spent 8 years getting a license, learning to drive, and doing so responsibly. But if I fuck up and roll a car my insurance is still going up.

[–]mdmrules -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Your analogy would only make sense if they fucked up pulling someone's teeth and were sued for damages making their malpractice insurance go up.

If your car insurance went up because you made a post about speeding and driving recklessly in a private Facebook group, would you still be here posting about how it isn't important that you had 8 years of driving experience prior to that?

[–]thencaapawardgoestoAlberta -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (16子コメント)

That's not the way analogies work. Mine's just fine the way it is.

[–]mdmrules 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (15子コメント)

I don't think you know how analogies work actually. Your analogy isn't fine. I fixed it.

Taking away 8 years of work from someone's life, their goals, aspirations and career plans because they were in a Facebook group that, over the course of 3 years, had 4? examples of violent, misogynistic, and unfunny "jokes" in it.

That's ANALOGOUS to taking away your drivers license (or punishing you in some way) after 8 clean years of driving because you made a post about speeding and driving recklessly in a private Facebook group. You didn't commit the crime (yet), but you said it... which means you thought it.... which means you probably will do it. Guilty as charged.

[–]thencaapawardgoestoAlberta -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (14子コメント)

I'd say you're the one who doesn't understand how analogies work. It wasn't wrong and you didn't fix it. You just made a new analogy to fit your own slant.

We don't know how many comments were made violating the student code rule book because they deleted it. It could have been thousands. It could have been four.

I also disagree with the expectation that I should care more because it's "eight years" and it cost them money. I don't think that should factor into the equation whatsoever. The analogy stands. You don't get a by because you put a lot of time into something. If you're a bad engineer who spends 20 years building a contraption that doesn't work your company doesnt have to give you a pass because you worked on it a long time. You don't get to keep your low insurance rate of you wreck your car because you had a dec record up until then. The investment of time or money don't matter. Pleas otherwise are stupid. They should receive the same treatment if they're first year undergrads or senior year dentistry.

id also point out - it's not 8 years. They still have a useful bachelors degree. That doesn't get taken away. It's 3 and a semester years of dentistry that would be shitcanned IF the school decided so. Which they're not going to.

Such melodrama. Their lives will be RUINED!!! RUINED I say!! It's a suspension from clinic.

[–]mdmrules 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (13子コメント)

You're not making an analogy. You're simply comparing the relationship between driving recklessly and your driver's licence to the relationship between making stupid, misogynistic jokes and having the right to graduate a dentistry school like everyone else.

It's not an analogy, and it's a horrible comparison of two situations. They're not at all the same. All you're saying is "if you fuck up, you pay the piper. Just like someone that causes an accident does through their insurance." and this situation is whole lot more complicated than that.

Also, but yes, an 8 year clean driving record does actually matter if you cause an accident. Insurance providers usually use a scale to determine rates. 8 years clean with 1 accident is likely a better rate than 2 yrs driving with 1 accident.

[–]thencaapawardgoestoAlberta 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (12子コメント)

I am making an analogy. It is not a comparison.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying the amount of money or time doesn't matter. That's my sole point in this particular argument. Whether they've invested 1$ or 50k, 1 week or 50 years. The time and money doesn't matter and so far nobody has counteracted that with any rationale as to why it should. People act like this is exceptional because it's dentistry. I think they should be treated the exact same as they would if they were 18 year old philosophy majors whether that be, as is currently, the exclusion from non-scholastic opportunities, expulsion, or complete dismissal of any disciplinary action whatsoever. Whatever the punishment is or isn't, the MONEY they've spent shouldn't be factor. At all. You don't get to buy yourself a better judgement because you've been in school for longer - not in my books.

I mean, it's one thing to not know how analogies work but it appears you're struggling with basic reading comprehension.

[–]mdmrules 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

The time and money doesn't matter and so far nobody has counteracted that with any rationale as to why it should.

I just did though. I took your "analogy" of car insurance and driving record and explained that accident-free time behind the wheel matters when you pay insurance, even after an accident. Does blowing your "analogy" up not count as rationale?

What more do you need to understand that your "analogy" is a pointless mess and your rash judgements aren't helping? How can you compare ACTUALLY driving recklessly with TYPING on Facebook that you'd like to hate-fuck someone?

Wouldn't a comparison of TYPING on Facebook that you'd like to drive recklessly be a better comparison?

Do you not understand how those are more closely related? Or do you just refuse to accept it? No one's following this thread, you can relent any time about this.

Follow up question: As someone with an 8 year clean driving record, should it effect your insurance if you say on Facebook that you'd like to drive as fast as possible through a school zone?

it's one thing to not know how analogies work but it appears you're struggling with basic reading comprehension.

My communication skills are just fine, thanks. Trying to make sense of your ramblings is taking so much time and energy, but I've decided that I refuse to let you win. Not only does your "analogy" not make sense or apply to this situation, but your attempt to rationalize some drastic, draconian judgement about something that you CLEARLY aren't qualified to analyze shows some seriously poor maturity, foresight and judgement. Maybe I'm speaking with a child? I'm not sure, but all I can say is I'm really happy that you'll have nothing to do with an official decision about this. Hopefully it's safely in the hands of educated grown-ups.

[–]thencaapawardgoestoAlberta -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (10子コメント)

I just did though. I took your "analogy" of car insurance and driving record and explained that accident-free time behind the wheel matters when you pay insurance, even after an accident. Does blowing your "analogy" up not count as rationale?

One, it's been my experience with insurance that you get penalized both ways. My sister wrote off a car at 18. My best friend did it last week. They both saw about the same leap in insurance all factors considered (2007 vs 2014). Both are BC drivers.

You still haven't explained why money or time should matter.

What more do you need to understand that your "analogy" is a pointless mess and your rash judgements aren't helping? How can you compare ACTUALLY driving recklessly with TYPING on Facebook that you'd like to hate-fuck someone?

My analogy isn't a pointless mess. I don't know what more you need to understand that, to be honest. It's evident you have no idea how analogies work.

I can compare them because it's a analogy. That's kind of the point. I think somebody needs to brush up on their high school English notes.

Wouldn't a comparison of TYPING on Facebook that you'd like to drive recklessly be a better comparison?

I'm going to dumb this down for you: No.

My communication skills are just fine, thanks.

I would disagree. You clearly don't understand words when written in sentences together because you still seem to think I'm talking about whether or not these people should be punished, how or why. That's the furthest thing from my point which is why I'm not going to answer your question. It's not relevant.

My point is that time/effort =/= leniency. I want somebody to give me one solid reason as to WHY the length of time they've studied dentistry (3.3 years) should be a consideration or why the tuition they've paid should be a factor.

I am no saying they SHOULD or SHOULD not face any consequences whatsoever. I'm not talking about that.

I'll repeat that for you since you seem to struggle with that concept. I am not talking about whether or not what they did was deserving of reprimand, expulsion, suspension or any other penalty.

I am simply refuting the idea that they deserve more leniency because they are dentistry students rather than freshmen studying studio art or musical theory or engineering.

You don't get a bye for having student loans.

Some drastic, draconian judgement

Oh, please. They might be banned from an extracurricular school-run dentistry clinic that restarts next week. Until the school actually decides on their recourse - which I imagine will be a pretty mild wrist slap anonymous letters of apology to be circulated via email - I'll just chaulk this one up to a mild bummer.

about something that you CLEARLY aren't qualified to analyze shows some seriously poor maturity, foresight and judgement.

I know you are but what am I?

Seriously though, that seems to reflect your aptitudes from where I'm sitting.

Maybe I'm speaking with a child?

Yes. While my parents leave me unsupervised I decided to forgo Neopets and watching One Direction on youtube to debate whether or not tuition fees should be factored into Dal's decision. This is all the rage with us preteens. Snapchat, croptops, and educational policy debates. #swag #yolo

I'm not sure, but all I can say is I'm really happy that you'll have nothing to do with an official decision about this.

And I'm glad you're not an english teacher.

Hopefully it's safely in the hands of educated grown-ups.

On that much we agree.

[–]KINGCOCO 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's not that more time and effort mean more leniency. It's that the punishment should fit the crime. The justice meted out here should be proportional to the crime. As they have put more time and money into their degree, expelling them would be a much harsher punishment with far more punitive consequences than an expulsion would be for, say a 1st year philosophy student at Seneca college.

Courts should and do take into account the consequences of the sentencing on an offender. For example, I once represented a guy who was charged and plead guilty to assaulting someone (the person he assaulted was throwing rocks at his car for no reason). If I recall correctly a criminal charge may have prevented him from visiting his son who was in prison (typing that out it seems unlikely). The judge considered the consequence of a conviction on his record and gave him an absolute discharge.

TL; DR: I am glad you are not a judge.

[–]mdmrules -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I know how BC's insurance works and it's in tiers. If you have a clean driving record for 8 years you qualify for ~40 discount from their standard insurance rate for a brand new driver.

If you get into 1 accident you lose a "road star" or whatever they call it, which can possibly drop you down 1 tier. Meaning your new discount would be 35%? And that's only a possibility, not a guarantee.

The anecdotal information you're receiving is bad. That's not how it works, and your "analogy" still doesn't apply, even if your information was correct.

You still haven't explained why money or time should matter.

I shouldn't have to. The onus is on your to explain why all of the sudden: time served, a history of normal behavior, services rendered, reputation, interest, input, investment etc etc etc should be totally ignored and dismissed in this case when every single judiciary process I'm aware of takes those things into account. Criminal and Civil Courts use these elements all the fucking time, what makes this so special that it should be ignored?

It's evident you have no idea how analogies work.

I can compare them because it's a analogy. That's kind of the point. I think somebody needs to brush up on their high school English notes.

You seem to think it's the wild west of literary terms where anything goes and you can compare an apple to an orange and call it an analogy. That's not at all true. Your comparison fails completely because you are equating bad jokes on Facebook to potentially harming other people on the roads. These things are not at all similar. Only one of them is taking place in the real world.

You can't, for instance, say: "He peeled that orange like he was eating an apple." Not only is it insanely stupid, but you're not comparing anything... you're saying words and calling it an analogy.

Analogies are the basis of how we perceive and understand the world. Without comparisons, we'd see everything as a blank slate and it would be impossible to define anything specifically. If we actually relied on your "analogy" to explain this case to someone who's just hearing about it, they'd have a complete misunderstanding of events. They'd assume that an actual rape happened and that the argument against punishing the rapist is that he hasn't raped anyone in 8 years. That hypothetical story what your analogy would best represent.

Your comparison is deliberately misleading and your refusal to give an inch on it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. We're talking about people's lives here, not about if you get to win an argument on the internet.

I am not talking about whether or not what they did was deserving of reprimand, expulsion, suspension or any other penalty.

Maybe not, I don't feel like dissecting your posts again so I'll take your word for it, but ignoring the fact that they're this far into dentistry training, not considering what would be taken away from them if expulsion occurred, and ignoring the price they would pay for the rest of their lives if this happens... Well it's just not how fair judiciary processes works. Not on any level that I am aware of... including car insurance. You're taking away the only thing they have going for them, their reputation and integrity outside of this Facebook group.

Oh and if you were trying to bust my theory that you're either immature or a child... well you failed with your last ramblings. I don't need any more confirmation.