throwawayjava

But some departments are less analytic (e.g. departments heavy on [2] and [3] aren't too difficult to find in the US). In those departments, the mode of thinking is very different from what you'll experience in a CS course.

And in both cases, taking a lot of humanity courses will teach you how to write well. Which is definitely a skill that a lot of CS majors lack.

(Also, a course of study in analytic philosophy can definitely help round out a CS major that's too light on the theory courses.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics

You can study Computer Science while also learning a bit of art history, or architecture, or psychology, or the sciences, or business, or...

And doing so might even make you more valuable to your employer, to yourself/your family, and to society.

> You are a burden on society if you don't have a productive job paying your own way... We believe is education required to be productive, so we subsidize education to get more productive people in society.

This mode of thinking is a great way to churn out lots of well-behaved, competent corporate employees. From this viewpoint, it follows that the path to the upper class is reserved for the already-rich.

I think it's possible to agree with the article and also disagree with this judge.

You don't even need those things. Intelligence and practice will suffice, even for "purely rational arguments".

Defending Truth makes debates easier to win, but isn't a necessary or sufficient condition.

> and, more importantly, the justification provided by the student groups that organized those votes

Graduate students get special treatment which bumps up their real compensation.

So do military families.

What makes this treatment "special" is that it's targeted at a subpopulation. That's all.

You're the one attaching moral weight to these purely factual statements.

It is an identical benefit.

The justification for the benefit is not identical. In one case we're providing additional compensation to veterans. In another case we're providing an incentive for research.

But the benefit itself really is identical.

> This act was for the protection of servicemembers against loss of job or loss of home because of a deployment

Civilians also lose jobs / are forced to relocate?

Pointing out that someone gets special treatment is not an argument that they don't deserve that special treatment.

> You don't understand the arguments you're making.

You seem to be under the impression that I think these benefits are either unreasonable or sufficient.

I don't believe either.

I'm merely pointing out that there are many provisions in the tax code that are specific to military personnel and families.

Perhaps they deserve those benefits, as you argue. And I agree. But that doesn't mean those things aren't special treatment in the tax code.

> They pay tax. I paid tax. Just like everyone else in the USA.

Including graduate students. Excluding billions of dollars over at Apple.

Maybe if we stopped fighting over who's getting screwed more and started taxing extreme wealth we wouldn't have to choose a winner in this apparent culture war?

Yes.

> and tell me if you think that list compares to the large governmental subsidy that is provided to support non-taxation of tuition for graduate students.

From my original post:

>> Additionally, and in direct analogy, GI Bill tuition is not taxed.

It's not just comparative. It's Literally. Identical.

> And no, spouses don't get special treatment. You're making things up to justify your argument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Spouses_Residency_Rel...

Mind you, I'm not claiming that these benefits should go away, or even that they're enough. But claiming that military members don't receive as many benefits as grad students is absurd.