They also do a pathetically low amount of work compared to other professors, and it's an entry level position. If they're even decent at their job, they won't stay an adjunct professor for long.
And no, they don't pay their own money via grants. That's asinine.
I love me some Chick Fil A. I'll never eat there again.
I have plenty of "arguments" backed up by real world experience from being in academia. Most of the conservative concepts of what goes on within it are utterly wrong and prevent meaningful reform of the university system.
Why did I have to practically beg you to present a valid argument? You started off with a, "no u" and a, "because I said so" assertion. Not very academic of you.
The reality of higher education is that now the bulk of teaching at large state schools or R1 research institutions is done by adjunct or part time faculty that get paid very little (usually hourly).
That's just blatantly false. Pick any school and look at which professors are offering which classes. It's just simply not true.
I'm sure you'll dismiss this as them getting what they deserve.
I'm not entirely sure as to what you're trying to imply here, but whatever it is, it has no place in a genuine discussion.
This causes poor instruction across the board because these people are barely staying afloat financially yet have to take up more of the teaching burdens every week.
On what planet are you living? Professors have a choice of what they want to do; Whether that is teaching or research, and how they balance that is largely up to them when they negotiate for their job. Even part time professors at the schools I have previously checked make a minimum of 40k and up.
Most academics never secure a tenure track position, even in STEM, and the 70k number you cited is an exceptionally good salary for a state school.
That's just not true. I know someone personally who graduated not two years ago and is already making 70k as his starting salary. It's literally public record.
The higher end salaries are for people that end up getting the tenured position (most don't)
How could you possibly imply that teachers don't often become tenured? Yeah no shit it takes a few years of experience to obtain, but that's the whole fucking point, isn't it?
Not to mention that if a college is located in a large city 70-120k a year is relatively little especially if someone has a family.
That's vastly higher than the median household income of America. For you to imply that this is, "relatively little" is just asinine. Teaching is not an incredibly hard job; Why are you acting as if professors are entitled to million dollar salaries for doing minimal effort, ESPECIALLY when they can't be fired after a while? That's ignoring the dozens upon dozens of other perks that they are subject to.
Administration is paid far more while they outsource teaching more and more to those underpaid adjuncts, who cannot teach effectively in many cases for the reasons I mentioned. Universities have expanded administrative positions and then cut full time teaching staff.
So, ignoring the validity of this premise, what purpose does this serve the school? Surely if they are doing it, it must be at least in theory beneficial to them.
The cliche of the professor working "2 to 4 hours a week" is also wrong,
I'd love to know where you got, "2 to 4 hours a week" from. That's never been mentioned here. But more importantly, they work FAR fewer hours than any comparable job.
because of greater demand professors have to teach extra classes without the equivalent of overtime in many cases.
You mean like if they were tenured? I thought just earlier you were saying that not many professors obtain a tenureship? Part time and assistant professors are often paid depending on how many classes/students/hours they teach and research, so surely you're not referring to them.
Plus at most universities these professors are doing advising, grading, and the work needed to get published so that they can advance professionally.
You mean doing what they're getting paid to do? Wow, what heroes. /s
None of that is a 2 to 4 hour a week job.
It is tremendously less work than any comparable job to these salaries. They have a large influence on their own schedule/hours, they can assign their own work at their own pace, take days off as they please, and after a few years of loyalty, they can't be fired. all while making tons of money, taking extreme leisure in their student interactions, and enjoying the benefits that come from the school environment.
Yeah, woe is a teacher.
"talking points"
Could you please explain the significance of this phrase? Ironically, it sounds like that phrase itself is a, "talking point." You have no real argument, and you are trying to strawman and artificially discredit any points made against you by just calling them, "talking points."
most professors make little money
bhaahahahahah.
In most areas you can look up their pay if it's a public university. Why not give it a try? Most professors at all colleges near me make a minimum of 70k a year, with the majority being over 115k a year. Keep in mind this is for people who work anywhere from 2-4 days a week, typically, and are always lazy and delayed in their duties.
Could you care to provide evidence that actually supports the premise then, instead of speculative analysis?
Bullshit.
Dude, the articles just went through this site not two or three days ago, and of course there are plenty of others over the past few months. I'm not making shit up on a whim.
You don't have to go all hyperbolic to make the point that asymptomatic spread is not a boogeyman. There is evidence of it.
I'd love to see hard evidence, instead of anecdotal speculation. That's all I've ever seen in support of asymptomatic transmission.
Shaming people for wearing masks is just as bad as shaming them for not wearing masks. I'm damn well making sure to wear a mask around my 90 year old parents even though I don't think I have Kung Flu. Only a fucking moron wouldn't.
So, were you wearing a mask around your parents prior to this virus? This thing is hardly any different than the flu, the common cold, tuberculosis, etc.
Epidemiologic Evidence Most reports of presymptomatic (9–12), asymptomatic (13–15), or a combination of presymptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission (16,17) were from China (Table 1). Presymptomatic or asymptomatic primary patients were typically exposed to SARS-CoV-2 during travel from Wuhan or another city in Hubei Province, China (9–16). One couple was exposed during a mass gathering in Shanghai for the Chinese Spring Festival (17). Reported cases of infected persons who transmitted the virus to others while presymptomatic or asymptomatic have occurred within families or households (9–11,13–17), during shared meals (10,12), or during visits with hospitalized family members (9,13). An inherent confounder to these reports from China is the inability to entirely rule out alternative SARS-CoV-2 exposure in the community early in the outbreak, when transmission in the community may have been undetected.
This entire paragraph is dependent on speculative analysis of anecdotal evidence, and is not proof by any means of asymptomatic disease transferal.
However, cases of presymptomatic transmission have been reported from other countries before widespread community transmission occurred. A report from Germany documented infection of a German businessman after exposure to a mildly symptomatic colleague visiting from China (18). Before becoming symptomatic, this businessman exposed 2 other colleagues who subsequently received a COVID-19 diagnosis but did not have contact with the primary patient from China or any other known source. A report from Singapore described 7 COVID-19 clusters resulting from presymptomatic transmission; presymptomatic primary patients varied from persons with travel from high-incidence countries to persons exposed in the local community (19). All primary patients experienced distinct periods of initial exposure and presymptomatic close contact with secondary patients who had no other known exposure risks. The incubation periods for presymptomatic primary patients with distinct exposures ranged from 3 to 11 days; for presymptomatic primary patients with travel history to an area with active transmission, the time from last exposure to symptom onset ranged from >2 to >9 days.
Half of this paragraph is also anecdotal speculative analysis, and not proof of anything. The other half is irrelevant to this discussion.
Here's a study that looked at transmission of asymptomatic patients. Zero transmission with 455 host subjects.
And, just think about it for two seconds. If you're not coughing or sneezing, the amount of particles that you're sharing to others is incredibly limited by comparison. If you're asymptomatic, you're not likely to spread it even if you can. The idea of asymptomatic transmission being a concern is laughable at best.
Asymptomatic spread is rare
It's also completely unproven for Kung Fru. There's no evidence to support the idea of asymptomatic contagion.
If you think this makes sense, you need help.
These people are beyond that. Short of Jesus Christ, these people are irredeemable.
And it ain't above the waist...
Not Pennsylvania Avenue, that's for sure.
Just for the record, this is several weeks old. Obviously there's nothing wrong with posting it again, but let's make sure we are factually accurate.
They're degenerates. Call it what it is. There are multiple definitions for a Eunuch, and as weird as they are, they shouldn't be confused with mental illness and degeneracy.
There are a lot of words here, you should sum up your statements better: I won’t read them all
I responded precisely and accurately to argue my point and address your questions. Your refusal to read them is not my fault; Don't try to imply that it is.
I'm trying to have an honest discussion here, and clearly you are not.
because a pregnant woman was threatened with bodily harm,
No she wasn't.
car attacked
No it wasn't.
and blocked from retreating.
Run them over if you fear for your life. The only possible situation where exiting the vehicle is beneficial to one's goals is if your goals revolve around an ego fight.
I’m on the jury where that lady pulled the trigger
She didn't
I’d vote justifiable homicide.
It's nowhere near that simple, and my comment has little to do with the jury. You'd know that if you bothered to read it.
So, after you use ad hominem to attack and insult me and then I call you out on it, you delete your comment and decide you better at least try to make an argument? I'd be fine with that if you weren't still using ad hominem attacks (incorrect ones at that) to form your comment.
I'll humor you all the same.
I disagree big time. Individuals blocked them from being civil.
How did they block them from driving away? If they physically stood in front and behind the vehicle to attempt to, "block" them, that still does not justify leaving the vehicle's protection to continue engaging in an ego argument. I'll come back to this point later (though I already addressed it in my original comment, which I'm guessing you didn't read).
If you're saying that as violence increases, one cannot remain, "civil" in their defense, I reject both premises.
For the first premise: First of all, words != violence. These black women were shouting, and had many opportunities for physical violence, but never partook in the action. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have been threatening, or that this wasn't a pre attack indicator for escalated violence, but it does mean that they were at the time not violent. Without violence, there is no reason for the white couple to become, "uncivil."
For the second premise: One can defend themselves in any situation while remaining, "civil." It is not uncivil for a person to kill another in self defense. There are two definitions that you could use here for, "civil." The first, would relate to citizenship. It is absolutely American to use lethal force (when it is NECESSARY) in self defense. This should be abundantly clear by the entire history of our country, even if you were to ignore the fact that we are the only country in the world that recognizes a human's God given right to the details of the 2nd. The second definition would relate to societal politeness. It is still perfectly civil to defend yourself when doing so in a logical manner. In any self defense situation, there is a reasonable response to be had, often multiple responses can be valid, but there is always at least one response that is most reasonable. The best strategy (when available) is to deescalate and avoid trouble, but this is not always possible, and of course different circumstances are different. However, one can always remain civil and reasonable given proper knowledge and experience in regards to self defense.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That is science redcoat.
Newton's Third Law of Motion is not applicable to psychological, legal, moral, or self defense topics. I will never understand how someone can know so little about something and act like an expert on it.
Also, could you please fuck off with the insults? It is clear to anyone reading this thread that I am trying to have a real discussion here, and your insults have no place in this.
Too many down votes for me to read this shitty thread and your opening argument just leads me to believe I have already wasted too much time on my own post.
Ah, so you admit to confirming my suspicions. You admit to having near total ignorance of my comment, and yet you still act as if you understand what I am saying. It's baffling as to how someone could be so arrogant as you - to think you understand what I am saying - to think that you understand who I am, what I am trying to do in this thread, what points I am making - without even reading my comment.
I'll suggest it to you once more: I implore you to take a hard look at your actions here. You're not behaving in a logical manner; You're behaving like a liberal.
I know. They should have just let them beat their white asses. After all, that white lady did bump into her...
First of all, if they had violent intentions, don't you think they would've been swinging? It's not like they didn't have a shouting match for at least a few minutes. You're acting like they never got the chance to fight, when that's blatantly false.
And I'm not saying they don't have a right to defend themselves; I'm saying that there's nothing but words in this video. You can't fucking shoot someone over mean words, and I don't get why that's a hard concept for you.
We have no idea what happened to make this cool and collected lady pull a gun.
Actually we have a pretty fucking good idea, considering it's on video.
But the camera bouncing around like that makes me think they were bum rushing the car.
So you think the best response to someone attacking your car is to... get out of the car? Not, drive off like any reasonable person? Not even draw your weapon from within the car; You're saying that removing the only thing separating you from the other person is the best course of action for self perseverance? Could you explain your logic on that one to me?
At what point is the pulling of the gun justified?
It's pretty fucking simple and established law, with slight variances from state to state. You can use deadly force (example: A firearm) in self defense when a reasonable person has fear of death or severe bodily harm. Fat women screaming some insults at you is NOT justification for killing someone, no matter how stupid they are.
How do you know they were unarmed? Because there was not a gunfight?
A better question is what are their intentions. They had many opportunities to physically attack the white couple, but they didn't do anything but shout like spoiled and naive brats. That doesn't guarantee that they won't attack later, but that's beside the point. The white couple as self defenders should be looking do deescalate and evade conflicts. Leaving the only barrier between you and the attacking party is not what any logical individual would do if they are interested in self defense. This is clearly an ego battle, and any idiot can tell that. Absolutely anyone who knows even the most fundamental basics of self defense will tell you this.
The most valuable tool they have is their car, and they were able to enter it without any issue. If they truly felt threatened, their best course of action is to drive away. It's not a hard concept. It doesn't matter if they're standing in front of the car; Run them over. I promise you that action would be easier to defend in court rather than actively choosing to remove barriers of protection and willingly confront the threat when there is an option to leave.
It'd be different if they were threatening them. It'd be different if they were trying to swing at them. It'd be different if she drew before she got into the car for the first time. But that isn't the circumstance that we have, is it? She willingly had an ego battle, and there's no denying that.
Does it make a difference to you that the white lady is pregnant?
ONLY if she had drawn BEFORE entering the car, and I'll explain why (instead of just screaming, "nuh uh im right ur rong"). The shouting match here can be a pre attack indicator for violence, however this is highly circumstantial. As the incident moved towards the car, the distance between both parties became narrower. Now, if they were rapidly charging the pregnant lady, empty handed skills are the best course of action as it simply takes too long to draw a firearm, and it becomes an increased risk when they are in range to grab it. However, they didn't charge at her, but merely walked closer in an intimidating fashion. In order for her to enter her car, she has to position her body in such a way that puts her at an increased risk of a physical attack. If she reasonably felt threatened at that moment, it could be justifiable to draw as she enters the vehicle, and to keep the weapon drawn from within the protection of the car as they drive away.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that if you truly felt that your life was at risk from these people that you'd EXIT YOUR FUCKING VEHICLE TO CONTINUE SHOUTING AT THEM. This logic works both ways, too. The blacks in this video clearly don't believe that this woman is a racist, violent person who wants to kill all blacks, or they wouldn't have continued to shout at her as she pointed a weapon towards them. If you truly think your enemy wants you dead, you wouldn't be provoking them as they point a weapon towards you.
It's amazing to me as to how little you must understand about self defense and the related legislation to try to act as if I'm saying they should've let themselves get hurt here. You are ignorant of this topic (not an insult, I am stating things bluntly. Not meant to belittle you, not meant to be an attack on you, etc etc etc. I am speaking bluntly here.), and yet you still feel as if your opinion is valid. A non-doctor doesn't go around telling surgeons that they're doing their job wrong. A non-engineer doesn't go around telling engineers that their designs will/won't work. So why do you think that your uninformed opinion on self defense practice, legislation, etc is valid?
Hmm, I write a long comment, breaking down each point that the original commenter made, participate in a good discussion, contribute valid points sourced from knowledge, experience, and facts of our legal system and self defense strategy, and you respond with a, "go fuck yourself because I don't have an argument."
Ya know I can't help but see the resemblence between you and an NPC in that response. I'm here trying to have a discussion, and hopefully prevent more people from ruining their lives via legal trouble, and you'd rather scream, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" than consider the possibility that you are incorrect.
I implore you to take a hard look at your actions here. You're not behaving in a logical manner; You're behaving like a liberal.
Yes, deport a /r/The_Donald member since ~7,000 subs because I make a valid argument in relation to our laws, legal system, and logical self defense. Solid plan.
I believe everyone has the God given right to carry, but I also believe that one has a moral duty (NOTE: NOT A LEGAL DUTY) to carry responsibly. She's clearly ignorant of laws and proper self defense training/knowledge based on her actions here, and that isn't how one carries responsibly. (Not that laws are always correct/just, but it is necessary to understand them to prevent/negate legal difficulties to the best of your ability without sacrificing safety)
It is very likely that she let her hormones get the best of her here, but that does not absolve her of her responsibility to obey the law (or, at least it shouldn't - Women have quite literally used hormones as a defense for murder on more than one occasion).
I think that discretion should be used here in terms of legal action, but clearly it isn't.
They're in a vehicle, which offers protection and mobility. Leaving the vehicle is not logical if someone fears for their life. Just drive through them. That's arguably less force than pulling the weapon, and it is ABSOLUTELY safer/easier to defend in court than LEAVING THE VEHICLE to pull a firearm over fucking WORDS.
It might be different if they were actually being violent, or posturing for immediate violence, but the black women here are just being loud women. They're not indicating violence.
De-escalated
They drew weapons on unarmed females who are not clearly posturing for a fight. They're absolutely being aggressive and arguing, but they're not indicating violent actions.
Drawing a weapon here is absolutely an escalation of force by any definition.
Retreated
Hardly retreating when they exited their vehicle to continue the ego fight.
Stayed calm
Drawing a weapon and participating in the screaming match is not what any logical individual would call, "calm."
Tried to leave
They exited their vehicle instead of driving off. They didn't try very hard to leave.
Defended themselves only after being menaced, threatened with violence, harassed with racial comments, falsely accused, and prevented from leaving.
Words != violence. You can't just draw a firearm because someone said mean things to you. You're going to get prosecuted and sued if you do this.
Furthermore, they were not, "prevented" from leaving. They were discouraged from leaving, however the logical action if they feared for their life was to drive through the idiots standing around their vehicle. They chose to stay when they exited their vehicle. Getting out of the vehicle's body of protection is the worst thing for them to do if they truly feared for their life/severe bodily harm, and only proves that it was an ego fight. This is clear as day and I promise you this is how it will be argued in court.
The Wuestenbergs demonstrated amazing restraint and poise.
The man did, however the woman clearly did not. The man tried to deescalate, avoid a shouting match, and leave. The woman let her ego get the best of her, by FAR. The only thing she did right was to get back in the car after they backed off, instead of trying to wait around for the police to show up. If she's let off the hook, this (combined with the fact that she's a woman (pussy pass) and pregnant) will be the only reasons she gets off from criminal and civil issues.
They handled their firearms per typical training protocols.
Not even fucking close. For starters, she's carrying without one in the chamber, which is a horrible idea for a multitude of reasons, but more importantly she's pointing the weapon at a target that she does not intend to immediately shoot. Anyone who has any self defense training knows to hold a low ready position until the threat becomes imminent, and at this range it's inadvisable to extend the weapon so far out. You want to hold the pistol close to your chest so it can not be easily taken away, unless you have ample distance between you and your target.
They definitely shouldn't be fired for this, and I don't think lawsuits are justified here as both parties are acting like morons. Civilly, there's some torts that could be involved here to save them from a verdict of, "liable" but they're almost certainly still going to have to go through the ordeals of court to get there. Criminally, the DA is clearly trying to make an example of them, so they're going to have some rough experiences there as well.
I personally don't think that we need the courts for this encounter, as there are no damages as a result. However, you're completely talking out of your ass with your comment here, and you are giving horrible advice. These people have massive legal trouble ahead of them that they could have avoided if they actually tried to deescalate the situation, and leave.
Edit: Downvote me if you want, but doing so without commenting as to why only proves that you are not knowledgeable, experienced, or informed as to this topic.
I'm in agreement with you on this one. I've read claims in this thread that they were prevented from leaving, but I don't see any evidence of it. They're in their car. Run the person over if you feel threatened, but don't leave the vehicle and draw a weapon. Drawing the weapon was nothing more than an ego battle, and it was absolutely the wrong decision.
But, you said two cases this week. What was the other one? Surely you're not referring to the couple who drew weapons after rioters broke down the fence to their community, right?
Ignoring the implications that he makes in regards to the majority of each group...
He's definitely not, "based." He's supported China recently, as well as speak some bullshit about, "privilege". While he shares some values with us, he is definitely not an ally.
I mean, they got Russia to call in a few in the Middle East, on more than one occasion.
You're referring to special circumstances, and not, "professors." You're conflating job positions to make it seem like professors as a whole are underpaid, when that's just blatantly false.