So who do you feel deserves more money?
 

An actor or Teachers?

If I were to give you $10 million dollars, who would you give it to and why?

I'll explain in a minute, but I'd love to know how everyone feels on this before hand?

-E- Answered question now in thread

Me. I deserve all the money.

A single teacher might not deserve millions but at the same time nor does the actor.
I don't like the idea that one or the other should get millions when really the problem isn't that individual good actors get paid millions while remarkably good teachers barely get by. The problem is that no one person really should have a personal income of millions. Perhaps a company or business should, but there's no person on Earth that actually needs that much. So why not give the entire faculty of the school those millions, or every person working at the studio on that movie a larger cut of the millions they've helped their movie to earn.

Charities because really both the teacher and the actor really don't need it anymore then organization built on bettering mankind or saving those that need to be saved.

Neither of them deserves more money than the other. I believe in some disparity in wealth distribution as a means of making the economy work, but it's not the place of me, anybody, or any system, to go "Hey, you deserve a better standard of living than that fucker over there. They suck and you kick ass."

Every choice made by anybody in the world makes sense to them. They get squirted out of a vagina and then they bounce from place to place as informed by either their biological makeup or the places they've been previously, and none of them deserve what they get whether it's good or bad. That's why rewards and punishment should relate to nothing other than what will make society function better from that point on. It's why I'm against the death penalty, and it's why I despise conventional libertarianism.

I give it to the teachers to help improve the public image of the field as a viable career path.

Teachers because underfunded actors means some aspects of entertainment become less entertaining while underfunded teachers means a lot of children aren't getting as good a quality of education as they should be getting.

Trick question?
 

I'm not sure there's a single person on this forum who, answering seriously, would choose a single actor over however many teachers.

As a teacher, I long ago forgot what goals I had when originally getting into the profession.

I think...John Steinbeck? Something about John Steinbeck?

I pretty much do it for the pleasure of giving out detentions now.

And what if I told you Ben Stiller actually screwed over NY Teachers?

It would further my view that nothing good ever came of Ben Stiller.

Teachers.

Though I'd keep a bit for myself. >_>

The teacher because Im more likely to become a teacher than an actor some day so I got that sort of bias already present.

Any time you think of doing something like this, stop. Find the nearest piece of solid wood, and just start banging your head into it. I'll let you know when you can stop in a minute.

Teachers, in a second. I don't even know how this could be a question, unless you just like, are a terrible person and hate teachers (how dare they try to corrupt our children with KNOWLEDGE.) and are ambivalent to actors and so place actors above teachers.

I mean, you like or hate some particular actors but how do you like or hate 'actors' as a concept? They're all lying bastards because they pretend to be people they aren't? I can see maybe some backward-ass-thinking person hating on teachers because they corrupt our children or whatevs, hating teachers, but anyone who isn't crazy pretty much has to agree that 'teaching' is a good thing whereas 'acting' as a concept isn't really good or bad. (I mean there's like 'acting is a cultural contribution in the form of the arts, but still.)

So I don't understand this question except in the context that someone who hated teachers would give it away to literally ANYONE else, an actor perhaps but it seems like you could've just asked "do teachers deserve money more than any other random other group that doesn't especially deserve money" if that was your intention.

And if it was, that's a ridiculous question, except, again, if people just hating teachers is a thing that happens.


It kinda seems like the point here is to discuss whether or not we hate teachers, and this thread was made within the context that there are people and they hate teachers for some reason.

And I don't think that people hate teachers (then again, I'm something of an idealist on topics like these. I just can't conceive of why you would), so I'm left unsure of the point of this thread.

Edit:


Seriously? Have you BEEN to a public school? They are in DIRE need of funds, all of them (all the ones I've heard about, anyway.) The educational budget in this country sucks, most of it is wasted on sports while other programs suffer, the teachers are way underpaid...What could be more important to spend money on than making sure the people who are going to run the world in twenty years aren't a bunch of idiots*?

*Though they are. Like I said, we need to spend more on education.

I'm not in the mood for a heated debate right now
 

Charaties include schools and education amoung other things not just lining a teacher's pocket with cash that could go towards improving the school system.

Besides ask your self what's more important helping the sick and dieing or making teachers rich?

Apparently stating an opinion constitutes heated debate.
 

Teachers. He said teacherS. Plural. As in, 'teachers as a whole'. Big difference between that and 'lining a teacher's pocket with cash'. (And would amount to about three bucks per teacher, but it has more important things to go to than the teacher's salaries. Like supplies for them to teach *with*, books, educational facilities, etc.)

And yes, making teachers 'rich' (ie, not poor. 'Round here they make a little more than the average person, because this state is poor as shit. Other places they surf the poverty line.) is more important than helping dying people. More pay for teachers means more people become teachers means better educations for the people who are gonna run the world tomorrow. The future is more important than some sick people. Furthermore, getting a good education correlates with receiving MORE education which means more people with college degrees means better income all around, more research getting done, more money into cures for sicknesses and more doctors to treat them. In the long term, it helps more people.

Whatever. I said I'd give the money to charaties and fundraiser. Which the teachers and schools have. Plus this is all hypothetical anyway. Even Liz didn't treat this seriously.

http://andthatswhyyouresingle.com/wp...sed-full11.jpg

Whatever, I'm still not changing my answer over something that's nothing but a hypothetical question anyway.

I'd give it to an actor, specifically Mel Brooks, just so that he'd be encouraged to make another movie.

I just love Mel Brooks.
 

Seconded.

Man Kyanbu, I've seen you say some pretty damn stupid things but this one takes the cake. Hypothetical situation or not I'm seriously goddamn disappointed.

Work in an office supply store during back to school shopping season. I fuckin dare you. Been workin at staples for nearly four years now and I've seen some damn respectable educators who dip into their savings and retirement stash to make sure their students can get the bare necessities for school and it is always rings to the same tune of "budget cuts."

I can think of at least three dozen teachers who come to my store regularly for supply runs. Fuck your charities, man.

Gettin far too riled up about this and don't care if I get warned. Be damned if I sit back and let that one slide by.

I have nothin but the utmost respect for teachers. Because when it all comes down to the brass tacks they're the ones making a difference. If I could I'd drop a hefty sum on all of 'em.

... Actually, the main point was just to see how people feel about teacher's salaries, not to hate on them for a crappy job, with crappy pay, crappy benefits, the most education and the most regulation... Ok, so the government has a hard time educating others. I just figured before I go and depress everyone like I have a habit of doing, I'd let people... Ya know... Talk about it first.

Just sayin'
 

Seems like an unnecessarily duplicitous way to pose that topic.

(Duplicitous may be substituted for 'indirect'. Also, why actors. By using actors rather than anything important you were suggesting a hatred of teachers, as I stated previously.)

I think we should talk about what movie Mel Brooks would make when he is personally "encouraged" by our ten million dollar "gift-that's-not-a-bribe".

And on this note I'd better go ahead and post the reason for this story (before it gets ugly). There's actually a reason I brought up Ben Stiller. For a few days, I've been reading this story about how cities all over the US are subsidizing movies in Hollywood. That actually shows how we have some messed up priorities in governance. We give Ben Stiller $10 million from taxes as part of an overlapping subsidy for his new movie Tower Heist. The problem is, just recently 777 Employees school employees have been laid off in NY.

Point is, the number of people let go for the school equates to exactly the same as the subsidy given to Ben Stiller for his new movie. I truly did not think anyone would side against teachers though. I'm just going to step back on that one.

I really don't see how me giving the 10 mill to charaties is a god awful thing. Yes education is in dire need of it but so are other things too. Cancer Research, helping out 3rd world countries, and helping the homeless and the poor, providing jobs for the jobless, etc. So why turn this into a help teachers or else thread? It's like in the end there was never a choice, only one clear answer. And why is Liz not in the same water as me who said he'd keep it? Not that I want him to get dragged into this. (really hope he doesn't)

Yeah this probably should have been mentioned before.

On light of this situation. The money needs to go towards that school in NY. With every intent of saving those peoples jobs and bettering that school district as a whole.

Liz was clearly joking.

I'm gonna go ahead and agree with Bit that this is a stupid way to make a thread.

Patent law kills with that one.

Dambisa Moyo's talks on allowing the 3rd world countries to assist themselves is pretty convincing. I'll link the 8 minute version, but the 43 minute one is pretty good when she really gets going.



Uhm... I disavow all knowledge on that one...

Because he sparkles?

Well you have a good point there.

I'm a girl.

Besides, Blingee doesn't pay for itself.

It does if you're a prostitute.

Ben Stiller did not receive $10 million, and $10 million were not taken from teachers. You can't just say that every dollar in taxes that goes into some crap is being taken directly and entirely from whichever government funded entity you feel like all the good ol' folk might get worked up in a fit of populist rage over. Nor can you say the entirety of it is being given to an individual who is in fact only benefiting to a very diluted degree (if at all) from that subsidization. Ben Stiller is an employee of the entity being subsidized. For all I know his salary is fixed (as it is for many actors), and it would have been the same regardless, meaning only other aspects of the production would have been effected. The way you present this information is bullshit, and you should know that.

Also the way you formatted this thread is stupid. Just present us the information in the first post, don't play some shitty game where you try to push people towards a point where you can leap in and go "AHA, THEN YOU MUST AGREE WITH ME ON THIS!"

I wouldnt' mind movie tax credits or whatever the shit if there were a decently sane progressive income tax or whatever.

I guess what I would consider a decently sane progressive income tax would mean there's like no way anyone could make fifteen million dollars a year from anything, making shitty Ben Stiller comedies or otherwise.

So it's pretty much a wash.

Hey tool, if we don't improve the schools then there won't be people to research cancer.

Yes because being reasonable makes a man a tool.
 

You're late to the party bro, but thanks for filing your complaint.

I will take the ten million dollars and pay it to a large brawny man in exchange for picking you both up by your necks and comically clonking your heads together.

That's not true and neither is you saying that you're being reasonable.

Edit:

Fifth, I'd take that bullet.

Five million up front, five million if he can make your heads do an actual "clonk" sound.

http://www.cgdata.com/u/8/76916/port...uffySecond.jpg

Katie, you ever see that thread "EvilEarl: please stop making terrible posts"?

Read it man. Read it and take it to heart. You are Earl who still has a problem with calling people asshole but has improved somewhat. Your thing about giving it to charities is noble but it's also outside of the scope of this discussion. Right now you're the guy who, when asked "Apples or oranges?" you answer "Bananas mother fucker and now I can't hear you due to these conveniently acquired fingers in my ears".

Really, I mean, are you arguing charities are more deserving of critical funding than schools, schools which train the people who may one day be running charities? Someone call Luke Wilson to teach a lesson about the future.

I'm trying to rep you but the system won't let me!

Hahaha, oh man I was *just* looking at that thread.

Good times.

Hey, I call people assholes jokingly now. I don't even remember the last time I was serious about it.

Asshole.

I don't think Ive ever seen a red rep block before today.

If you don't continue making your payments we are happy to show you more.

How am I not being reasonable? I said that I'd give the 10 mill to charaty before learning the true purpose behind this thread (thanks to Jagos being late with that news article). Then I was proven to be wrong for doing so. Plus I was shown that I was clearly wrong about that. SO I changed my answer dispite previously standing by it. Because why would I stand by something when I was clearly proven wrong about standing by it?

If I stayed stubburn and faught for my missguided reason. I'd be a stuburn fool. And right now I'm fine with being the local furry nut job around here. I do not want to be any worse then that.

Your statement was even LESS in line with the purpose of the thread before the real purpose was revealed.

And I appologize for that. Honestly I never thought it would go this far seeing as this is NPF we're talking about...

Wait...

My god how did I make that mistake and not seeing this coming. -_-; Whelp now it's truly been a bad day for me.

Aldurin, sarcasm is dependent upon a previously established persona as a point of contrast. If you used to go around calling people assholes with sincerity, you can't just go AH I'VE TURNED OVER A NEW LEAF THAT HAPPENS TO LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE OLD LEAF BUT NOW IT'S SMIRKING A LITTLE.

Kyanbu and people talking at Kyanbu, I'd personally recommend skipping to the point where you all stop talking because between now and then the best you can hope for is only slightly-less-unpleasant-than-everything-up-til-now, which isn't particularly promising.

Jagos, you haven't said anything since I posted but what I posted is still true. I feel like reiterating that fact, because this thread is a carnival of tragedies, in which one heartrending atrocity is paraded after the other, as children look on and with tears in their eyes they turn to their mothers and fathers, those once trusted figures who brought them to this festival promising a night of merriment, and they say "but I thought you said God loves us."

This has been a bad day for General Discussion.

This wasn't meant as a "gotcha" thread in any way, shape nor form. So let me clear that air right now. I was trying to see how people would react to this news and as I said, I have a history of downer information. It's funny sometimes but I put this in general mainly for lighthearted reactions to this, whereas I usually post a lot of stuff that's SRS BZN in the discussion section about some heavy stuff. I didn't think anyone would start with the choking of throats so I just thought to myself "Hmmm... Wonder what people would think about this?" I am prone to irrational thoughts every now and again, and this is one of them.

No, Ben Stiller didn't steal $10 million dollars directly from the tax subsidy, but having read the other articles (since this one is part 4) there are a number of states that are clamoring to subsidize Hollywood movies even though it does nothing to help their local economies. Part Two shows how Wisconsin's subsidy didn't help them at all. The first article has a chart showing how the money for film incentives has increased over 20 years.

What Joe Karaganis did for the movie/ teacher aide comparison is show how NY contributed money to this movie while showing how teachers and their budgets were cut by about the same amount. To me, this is interesting because you can see how much that subsidy cost in quality education and puts this type of spending in detail for people.

I'm not going to get into rest but that's rather affrontive. Yes, you're still a cool person but I don't stay on the NPF forums all day every day. I will respond in due time and would like to be given that choice.

Food for thought, because even I know posting like that is something to avoid.
 

You may want to tone down a little bit, because as much as people belittle and argue with each other here, it's mostly either non-serious or discussion that they won't hold each other to too hard. Being directly negative and imposing towards people like what you're doing doesn't enhance any argument or discussion and can drive away people.

Having your little power trip from your recent popularity spike does not inherently justify such vile responses towards others.

Shush, Aldie. Just shush.

@Jagos: I'm not sure how you could have intended it as anything *but* a "gotcha" thread with your little, "What if I told you Ben Stiller stole 10 million dollars from teachers!" post, which is misleading and incorrect on a number of levels, especially for implying that it is somehow Stiller's fault that this happened. You don't make posts like that on accident. If you want to have a discussion about something, being intentionally misleading and failing to provide any meaningful information is not the way to do it.

EDIT: Also, everyone get off Kyanbu's nuts about the really dumb thing he said. It's just drawing out a conversation where one person is defending a dumb thing and other people are reading too much into that dumb thing, and it's making a terrible thread worse.

You're right in that this is just general discussion, and for that reason I would not be bothered by the way you chose to structure this thread if that was all that you were doing. But it wasn't, you chose to present the information in a way that was just as manipulative. Before you even start citing actual facts and sources you choose to lead into it with the most absurdly biased approach. You may not have intended for your thread format to have such a "gotcha" vibe and all of this could have been totally innocuous in intent, but when every post you make in this thread is propagandatastic enough that it looks like you're practicing to be either a cult leader or a FOX news pundit, I'm not going to immediately interpret it in a very friendly manner.

Again, I know this isn't the news board, and I'm sorry to everybody if my posting in this manner is inappropriate. I just respond poorly to the kind of intellectual dishonesty that this thread [appears as though it] represents.

I didn't mean to imply that I thought you should have responded sooner. I was just bringing your posts up again as a means of emphasizing how shit I think this thread is, so as to make that post more effective.

I'm not saying what I think about all this because Fifthfiend made a nice thread about me a month ago. I'm saying what I think about all this because it's what I think about all this. I'm sorry if you found my post hurtful, I genuinely am. It wasn't intended that way, and I can see why the presence of caps-lock may have been misleading. But I didn't say it because of my fucking ego.

EDIT - I do not rescind anything that I said. I just wanted everyone to know that it was not intended to be hurtful. I also do not think it was written in a manner that could realistically and effectively be interpreted as notably hurtful, given that my comment to Aldurin is helpful advice in a rather mildly snarky tone, my comment to Kyanbu & Co was only in regards to the state of their collective conversation and blamed nobody in particular, and my comment to Jagos was just neutral reiteration as a means of enabling a summing up of my annoyance with the thread in general. My failure to predict that some would view the matter differently was entirely reasonable.

Your posting in this manner is totes appropriate, as calling shit threads what they are has always been a totally okay thing that many participate in. In many instances, calling a thread what it is is the only way to get people to realize, "Hey, let's turn this shit around."

I don't know what gave you the idea that you're arbiter of good and bad posting around here, but please cut it out.

I am not backing down on what I said, since it's rare for posting like that to actually bother me. Sure people may say "Oh it's just Earl, nobody cares about him and his stupid posts" but I will still call out vicious posting when I am actually bothered by it. I won't care if people argue that I can't judge posts just because I'm not anybody else on the forum.

Dude. Seriously. Accusing Betty of being on an ego trip is at least ten times as douchey as anything you posted it in response to. Just fucking drop it.

Jesus Jumping Messiah, this isn't Kindergarten

You never actually get out of high school.
 

No. It's high school.

Ok, yeah.

Trust me, I'm the very last person you should say that to. There's at least three people around the board who can verify that I've come right out and said "hey, you know Earl's gotten around to making some pretty decent posts these days." This here

Is not one of them. You're being nasty to Betty on account of her doing pretty close to exactly what you claim to be doing. Not that I think she actually cares, mind.

There are legitimate ways to criticise people if you think they're being jerks. Failing that, there's always the report post button.

Acting as if you're spokesperson for the forum with statements like the one I addressed previously, and calling people vile power trippers, is not how you do it. Especially not in combination.

Edit: And like, what the fuck. Did no one notice my first page post? I was way meaner than Betty. Fuck all you guys.

Edit: APPARENTLY it's second page if you're using default view.

What if I pay a bunch of actors to play teachers?

Just let it trickle down.
 

The rich, duh.

I've explained myself once, I will not explain myself anymore. If you want to be critical, that's your option and choice. I did this so that this wasn't one of my most serious threads like the one I'm about to post in Discussion, thinking that it would lead to a fun discussion about Hollywood's credits and subsidies. Oy vey...

And text is a poor conveyor of that effect, instead making it seem as if you want to hang a choice over my head of when I post. I've told you about it. I don't need to reinforce that idea by making a SECOND post just to say how this thread went south based on a poorly conveyed notion of what I thought was fun. Boy howdy, will I not do this again!

That's probably for the best, Mr. Jagos. It reads like someone who thought they were being clever but didn't count on the part where people want to discuss a situation based on its merits and not just on the theoretical situation that may or may not have a bearing on what actually occurred. In the future, it maybe is best for you to stick to your "the sky is falling" OPs, or in the event of a theoretical, to allow the discussion to remain theoretical instead of posting teasers.

Nobody really likes teasers. You're the news article that says "Article continues after the jump." The magazine feature that goes from page 33-37 and then fucking 92-95. WHY IS THERE A SIXTY PAGE BREAK. You're the news program that says "Are bears killing more people in state parks? The answer to this terrifying question, AND MORE, after a word from our sponsors. You're the boss who says "We need to talk about your recent performance, but first I have a two hour meeting with upper management."

You know?

Shiney, you forgot to include the person outright lying in any of your examples. Cuz I mean, goddamn this-

-is just completely untrue in every way.

This feels more like some guy going "Hey I was just babysitting this kid and he decided to take a nap, and then I accidentally spilled pig's blood all over him, and I decided to bring in this altar of skulls because it provides such nice ambiance" before getting all self righteous and upset when I walk in and think they're sacrificing children to their ancient blood gods. And then they fucking accuse me of having a big discrepancy between the appearance and the intent of my actions.

Just to check, people do know that most actors don't pull the wages of movie stars right? Most cant even live off of what they make. And on the other side a college professor can break into the 6 digit income.

For the most part I'm with Betty. There are alot of factors that determine how much people make, some fair, some not. I am not sure giving that money for teachers is even a good idea. There are a finite number of students to teach, and there is no conclusive proof that smaller class sizes (thus more teachers) is a benefit. So while I find a teacher to be among the most important professions, I dont think giving them more money would aid society. Frankly if you were in it for the money, teacher probably wasn't the right career choice to begin with

Oh yeah there's the untrue part of it, I guess you could liken that to the bears analogy, where in fact no they fucking aren't and you're being sensationalist.

Just my opinion though. I could be wrong.
 

Professors =/= teachers. Not EVEN the same thing because professors also do research and have degrees that are useful for things other than teaching.

And how does smaller class size not make for better teaching? Less students, more individual time for each student...Things get explained better and clarified more, less time is wasted grading a million papers, teachers get to know each student more, etc etc.

And just because people don't get into teaching for the money doesn't mean a pay increase isn't a damn good idea. Firstly, it would attract more teachers (I personally know like ten people who have said to me "yeah I would go into education, I'd love to make a difference with the children and stuff, yknow? But I really don't want to spend all this time getting a masters degree to then go and work my ass off for 30k a year."

Furthermore, higher pay would lead to better teaching by existing teachers because they'll be less likely to get jaded because "oh god I'm wasting my life teaching these little retards for just enough money to get by and there's no budget for anything up to and including BOOKS." Teachers who have been at it for a while and aren't jaded as fuck are sadly a minority, in my experience. Methinks being able to focus more on individual students, the school actually having a budget for important shit, and not surfing the fucking poverty line would make for a lot less jaded teachers.

YOU LISTEN TO ME BETTY ELMS

YOU MAY HAVE BEEN SOME KINDA YOUNG HOTSHOT UP THERE AT POSTING ACADEMY

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW NOTHIN' BOUT HOW WE POST OUT HERE

ON THE STREETS

WHO WILL BE TOP GUN?

You can be my wingman anytime.

Lots and lots and lots of research has actually failed to provide a direct correlation between smaller class sizes and higher student achievement. Common sense would suggest this is the case, reality disputes the assertion.

The rest of your points have merit. Teaching does not attract the best and the brightest because it is not a career that provides the kind of wages that can afford someone a comfortable life. Those who choose teaching for the love of teaching are a special kind, and deserve reward. However those whose intellect is without question typically end up going to highly skilled jobs in engineering/etc fields in large part because the pay is ridiculous in comparison. Weed out the systemic corruption in most school boards and districts, and equalize pay scales, and teaching may become a more respectable profession again. But, this does interfere with the current political mood of "stupid means we get votes" (which is a ~bothsidez~ issue unfortunately).

As it stands the only way you're going to make enough money to achieve "the american dream" as a teacher is if you are a college professor. Those who teach our young at their most impressionable are looked down on unfortunately. See: Wisconsin.

Actually, you have more people in administrative positions making more money than the teachers in most circumstances.

This is actually semi-serious. Screw the intended topic.
 

Our education system is screwed up and needs fundamental alterations, I dont think anyone is saying otherwise.

I just dont think money would improve matters as much. At the very least I care more about that money going to up to date books, computers, maintenance. If we just bump up teachers salary, I mean yay they get more money and it makes their lives abit easier.

I doubt giving a teacher an extra 20-30 grand a year will suddenly make them better at their job.

Alright, here is the compromise that will please everyone:

The ten million dollars is used to hire security guards for the school districts in my area so that I can quit having the urge to bust heads myself when students assault each other and/or threaten to cut me. This way I can attain the peace that allows me to attend the latest Ben Stiller film this weekend.

EDIT: Or like they use the money to buy these kids 1. psychological help and 2. new parents because seriously, some of these kids are screwed up mostly because of their "parents", or rather, the people who begat them, since there is not a lot of parenting going on here.

Like sometimes you just want to give these kids a hug, but you can't, not only because it's against the law but they will also threaten to throw you through a brick wall. And as much as I try to tell them that there's no future in brick-wall-throwing and they need to focus on studying for their exams, sometimes, in the back of my head, I wonder if indeed if brick-wall-throwing is all they are capable of at this point.

I blame society, really.

ANOTHER EDIT: Like let me clarify: insomuch as I would like to make more than 80 dollars a day, I think that if I had 10 million dollars to allot, the money should be spent on improving students' home lives and providing societal support to them in and out of school so they can learn more easily and learn more and improve their lives in the future and be great people, instead of being caught in a cycle of poverty, crime, and hatred for themselves and others, perpetuating the same crime upon their children as was visited upon them. That's where I want the money to go, to preventing that.