You established it in your example.How would you prove who was drunk and who wasn't?
You established it in your example.How would you prove who was drunk and who wasn't?
No, they don't give the students an opportunity to learn. They know the professors don't teach worth a shit. They know that the freshmen that do pass have to resort to cheating in their overpacked auditorium sized classrooms. They know exactly what kind of scam they're setting up. The first year dropout rates are absurd even by state-school standards. And they're using tax dollars to fuel this scam.Its almost like they give students an opportunity to learn, and those that don't take advantage of that opportunity are replaced. You're right, that does sound like an asinine system. We need to have nannies to ensure everyone succeeds.
All I said was male wasn't drunk, female was. I didn't say anything about any breathalyzer or field sobriety tests or blood tests to show levels of intox. In your school board hearing scenario, if the female says she wasn't drunk and the male says she was, and the female says the male was drunk and he says he wasn't, what now?You established it in your example.
As someone who went to a school at 18 with auditorium classrooms for first year classes, I understand they aren't a good teaching venue. But I took the lectures seriously, took notes, studied on my own (gasp) and made good grades. The classes are an opportunity to show your responsibility as well as intelligence. You propose hand-holding, I think thats bullshit. If people need their hands held after 13 years of schooling, perhaps higher education just isn't for them.No, they don't give the students an opportunity to learn. They know the professors don't teach worth a shit. They know that the freshmen that do pass have to resort to cheating in their overpacked auditorium sized classrooms. They know exactly what kind of scam they're setting up. The first year dropout rates are absurd even by state-school standards. And they're using tax dollars to fuel this scam.
What total and complete bullshit. You are saying the professors know that to pass students have to cheat? Just to pass?No, they don't give the students an opportunity to learn. They know the professors don't teach worth a shit. They know that the freshmen that do pass have to resort to cheating in their overpacked auditorium sized classrooms. They know exactly what kind of scam they're setting up. The first year dropout rates are absurd even by state-school standards. And they're using tax dollars to fuel this scam.
Why even have a drinking age if you're going to let college kids drink themselves into oblivion anyway?Well, if you are telling the truth, then your campus is a huge outlier and you shouldn't be basing anything on it.
It's the same burden of proof used for all civil law cases in the US. To say it is really low would be to question the validity of all US civil law.really low burden of proof
Stop sidestepping. You want to lower the burden of proof for rape allegations at college in the service of a crusade against underage drinking. That is an absurd position and if you had even an ounce of decency in you, you would realize that.It's the same burden of proof used for all civil law cases in the US. To say it is really low would be to question the validity of all US civil law.
It is but this is disingenuous; there are very specific causes of action that are valid in what you're calling "civil law" (I think you just mean civil cases, most civil causes of action are based in common law not civil law unless you live in Louisiana). Those type of school board hearings and such don't really have any standard of proof, they are kangaroo courts. They're a vaguely quasi-judicial proceeding without any of the protections of a real court.It's the same burden of proof used for all civil law cases in the US. To say it is really low would be to question the validity of all US civil law.
Arguing with idiots on the internet.Clearly the undercurrent here is that Mist thinks all those cute girls who give themselves up freely to men (who are disgusting, in Mist's lesbian view) must only be doing so because they are intoxicated; surely they could see how ugly and nasty men are if they weren't drunk. If only all the cute college hotties didn't get drunk, they'd see the light and join Mist for some sapphic love.
Everything she's said has been anti drinking, anti-men, and even a lot of anti-woman stuff. My 2-bit psychoanalysis says she hates the women for giving themselves up to men and hates drinking for being the lubricant.
What do you LIKE, Mist? What makes you happy? So far you've been kind of an everything-is-negative bitch, honestly. Lets talk about what makes your jimmies tingle.
At least you're realistic about it and you didn't say "winning arguments with idiots on the internet", that would have been overreaching.Arguing with idiots on the internet.
That's true, which is why I don't think lowering the standards of evidence is as big of a deal as the article makes it out to be, since the college can do whatever they want to do anyway.They're a vaguely quasi-judicial proceeding without any of the protections of a real court.
Exactly. Accountability for legal activity, all because she works at a shitty school and hates alcohol. Which btw, I hate alcohol too. Just not on this silly fucking level.Not to mention her whole argument banishes when everyone reaches 21. The school now is policing a perfectly legal activity, among consenting, maybe slightly intoxicated adults.