Upload
Login or register

mcrut

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:2/09/2010
Location:Chicago
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#12485
Highest Content Rank:#2660
Highest Comment Rank:#4254
Content Thumbs: 2954 total,  3367 ,  413
Comment Thumbs: 3650 total,  4762 ,  1112
Content Level Progress: 58% (58/100)
Level 129 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 130 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 74% (74/100)
Level 233 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 234 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:104892
Times Content Favorited:759 times
Total Comments Made:2059
FJ Points:6362

latest user's comments

#87 - I don't get it, what's the paradigm shift?  [+] (1 new reply) 05/03/2016 on It's happening! 0
User avatar
#96 - plazmaflare (05/03/2016) [-]
A paradigm shift is when science hits a new era via a discovery. Once that discovery happens almost all major science world wide happens to revolve around it in some way. Something along those lines at least.
#30 - Does that make psychrometrics misogynistic? 05/03/2016 on Sexism +1
#28 - This is clearly someone who has never gone to a catholic mass,… 05/02/2016 on Left and Right, unite for a... 0
#8 - Gee man, like the joke dude or nah? 05/01/2016 on sassy queen +22
#3 - I always thought it was called the Mediterranean.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/01/2016 on sassy queen +45
User avatar
#6 - logainablar (05/01/2016) [-]
She means Americans are animals you twat
#8 - mcrut (05/01/2016) [-]
Gee man, like the joke dude or nah?
#41 - Sounds like Crious, not sure on that though. Similar sounding … 04/15/2016 on 832 0
#16 - I thought that title went to the gypsies  [+] (2 new replies) 04/12/2016 on 1351 +10
#23 - necrova (04/12/2016) [-]
People like to say the Irish as a collective whole are the niggers of euope, but in reality it's the damn gypsies and their dags. I'd still rather have a gypsy problem than an immigrant/muslim problem.
#34 - anon (04/12/2016) [-]
Nah the Gypsies are the spics of Europe.
#75 - "STEM-lords are always proud to triumphantly announce the…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/09/2016 on Friendship is Science +2
#81 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
I'm not sure I understand...

Why is art last if it is extremely important for most people? By art, I mean anything that entertains anyone in any way possible.

Can you please take a minute to imagine your time without art, music, movies, books, etc.? Do you really think that Hollywood or the music industry rakes in billions because it is unimportant for people?
#113 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
Its not its importance to individuals that matters, its what is ultimately needed and takes priority. Also, just because something is entertaining to someone does not make it art. Someone could have the time of their life jerking off, it does not make it art. You can go to the fringes of the definition and say something like a bit of programming is art as its an "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination", but no one in their right mind considers every little thing that expresses imagination and/or creativity, art. It loses all its meaning. If you actually do take it that far, to the point that everything that someone can consider entertaining is art, where do you stop? If that is how you look at "art" then what do you not consider "art".
#116 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
"By art, I mean anything that entertains anyone in any way possible."

I guess I am referring to entertainment in general. Art is one type of entertainment. I do still think that my argument holds insofar as entertainment is concerned. No?
#118 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
Entertainment fits, but it kinda messes up your stance quite a bit when you just slap "art" everywhere. Makes much more sense now that the statement was directed towards entertainment as the main topic rather than art in general.
#119 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
That was my mistake. Apologies.
#120 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
NP, I slip up with shit too at times, especially when there are multiple convo's goin on.
#20 - until you switch to a major that actually does something for society.  [+] (32 new replies) 04/09/2016 on Friendship is Science +41
#35 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
Well, let's get to it.

You are saying right now that art does nothing for society.

Do you do any of the following things: watch TV shows/anime/movies, read books/comic books/graphic novels, listen to any kind of music or play video games? Do you experience any kind of entertainment/culture in your life, and, if you do, how would you rate its importance in your existence? Would life be okay for you without the things that I have mentioned?

Now, let's see from an economics standpoint what kind things are happening in the world. My main interest is in the discrepancy of who exactly has to suck the government's dick for a certain amount of money contrasted with who makes that amount of money in a few months. What if we compared Hollywood/music industry to something like NASA?

STEM-lords are always proud to triumphantly announce the fact that they're being paid above minimum wage for having completed their degree. And what's in their head seems to make sense. "I make money because my work is valued. I'm helping out society. Thus, I am a good person who makes a good amount of money."

Sadly, the market shows you a different story--the one in which I juxtapose NASA's sucking the government dick for a few billion dollars for about ten years, and Hollywood racking in this amount in months time by relying on the demands of the population alone.

Despite 1) their interest in arts and entertainment, and 2) the extreme demand for arts and entertainment over science and technology, STEM-lords will utter in desperation "B-but... I-it's really hard to get a job in... in the arts... lol XD"

I actually agree with the above statement. It is an exrtemely competitive field. Much less so than engineering, programming or caring for autistic kids in a kindergarten. Famous actors rake in billions, while I'm lucky if I make >$60'000 from my writing. But that's not the question.

I don't like when people hypocritically bash art and culture like you and docvolto did. You live in a world where you are so surrounded by entertainment, that you can't imagine for a second only being able to listen to music when you go to church on a Sunday and to hear stories only twice or thrice a year when the bard ambled into your village.
#97 - anon (04/10/2016) [-]
Art is important for society, art teaching in college or uni is not.

Most great artists, no matter in what field have never been to a college, those who were did not major in arts.
Art is subjective, it's about being creative and being creative is about mental freedom. Today everything in popculture has a standartised form which makes it disposable, like the blue/yellow color scheme almost all major hollywood films use. Or as character design often has things like these shapes that normal mortals don't know about.

Artists, great artisis are people who do things differently and excitingly, like the earlier hollywood movies, ghost busters, pulp fiction, like rock musicians, later metal, grunge, punk.
Music majors will tell you that nirvana mostly didn't play grunge music, even though they pretty much were grunge, their tone defined grunge.

And thats why art majors are worthless and counter productive.
#108 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
Well, I do agree with everything you say. Art majors are not a good choice for anyone, which is why intelligent people usually do not choose them.

I guess I interpreted "choose a major that actually does something for society" as a prognostic of a career path, which would suggest that creating art and entertainment is not important for society.
User avatar
#75 - mcrut (04/09/2016) [-]
"STEM-lords are always proud to triumphantly announce the fact that they're being paid above minimum wage for having completed their degree."

Never did I imply that I was a STEM lord, hell I could be a business major for all you know. What I meant was a joke against the whiny troll. Also, in my opinion so it means that I am probably wrong, if your job ACTIVELY makes a difference in the lives of the general population then it is a career worth pursuing. Now you could argue that you should do what you love, and that too is a worthy opinion. For example:

Without those who design and actively improve tractors and other farming equipment so the yield and consistency in crops are always better than the last. There are people who are actively trying to save the forests we tear down every year so the paper and materials that are used by ARTISTS aren't squandered for nothing. Not saying that the arts don't matter. But when the walls of civilization start crashing down, NO WAY IN HELL would i go knocking on someone's door with an art major.

In conclusions yes you should be able to major in whatever you want, but when it comes to the pecking order, Art will always be last and there is a damn good reason for it.
#81 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
I'm not sure I understand...

Why is art last if it is extremely important for most people? By art, I mean anything that entertains anyone in any way possible.

Can you please take a minute to imagine your time without art, music, movies, books, etc.? Do you really think that Hollywood or the music industry rakes in billions because it is unimportant for people?
#113 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
Its not its importance to individuals that matters, its what is ultimately needed and takes priority. Also, just because something is entertaining to someone does not make it art. Someone could have the time of their life jerking off, it does not make it art. You can go to the fringes of the definition and say something like a bit of programming is art as its an "expression or application of human creative skill and imagination", but no one in their right mind considers every little thing that expresses imagination and/or creativity, art. It loses all its meaning. If you actually do take it that far, to the point that everything that someone can consider entertaining is art, where do you stop? If that is how you look at "art" then what do you not consider "art".
#116 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
"By art, I mean anything that entertains anyone in any way possible."

I guess I am referring to entertainment in general. Art is one type of entertainment. I do still think that my argument holds insofar as entertainment is concerned. No?
#118 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
Entertainment fits, but it kinda messes up your stance quite a bit when you just slap "art" everywhere. Makes much more sense now that the statement was directed towards entertainment as the main topic rather than art in general.
#119 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
That was my mistake. Apologies.
#120 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
NP, I slip up with shit too at times, especially when there are multiple convo's goin on.
#55 - miasaki (04/09/2016) [-]
I don't disagree that the art's are important to society. they have been for a hella long time now. However, I do agree that the art's major itself does not help society. Similar to the culinary arts, the field's are not so complex and deep that it requires advanced educational courses for all individuals. There's a reason a lot of the initial trade schools (College alternatives for many) were for the arts and culinary fields. Not saying they are not useful or inspire many to fulfill their dreams, they help many polish their craft and I dont see how that can ever be considered bad, but you do not require higher education or a degree for many to be able to create wonderful things at a consistent rate. And I'm not arguing that there are just a shit ton of people that just have natural talent or a knack for the stuff, just that the information and tools are available to all and there is a wealth of knowledge available that does not require a degree program. Many chase themselves into a hole of debt thinking its required for every little thing one can possibly do.

As for you comparing NASA to Hollywood, I understand that you are trying to make a point (A shitty one but an attempt was made. You are comparing an organization that does not exist purely for profit to an entire section of an industry that exists for nothing more than profit.), but if we get rid of Hollywood, we lose many cultural and entertainment pieces for the world, but if we get rid of NASA, we lose one of the most influential and inspiring technological organizations for the world, and humanity as a whole is set back more than being unable to indulge in their preferred piece of entertainment. Your statement makes it seem like you think somethings yearly profits gauges its importance to humanity. Does that mean DARPA is useless? How about medical research? Millions upon millions of dollars have and will continue to be sunk into many these organizations, projects and programs and not yield something of great use on many occasions, is it still less valuable to humanity than Hollywood? An individuals personal needs/wants do not trump the needs of all.

Also, those actors you pointed out are the minority in their own career fields, that's like a techie aspiring to be the next Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. its way the hell out there, but its based solely off their work and not whether someone notices and likes you, like the entertainment industry and actors. The entertainment industry is competitive because there's a flood of people that think they have what the big dogs are looking for, in turn, the big dogs have the pick of a very large crowd. The sciences on the other-hand, do not. We cannot pump educated individuals into the technical and medical fields fast enough to keep up with demand, the entertainment industry has never had this issue on this scale. An overflow of individuals lining up for a chance at stardom does not mean the field is better than any other. Its just restricted and closely controlled.

All in all, arts are important to society, the degree itself is not. NASA is not comparable to Hollywood in any way, form or fashion, especially on yearly profits (Was this honestly a good comparison for you?) and the sciences will always be more valuable to sustain and further humanity than entertainment. It has its uses, but it does not overtake the need, regardless if the masses acknowledge it or not.
#84 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
Still, entertainment is more fundamental to humanity than science. It is a brave (some would say stupid...) statement, but I'm ready to argue in its favor.

Science and medicine make it so that one has better chances of survival. Entertainment and such luxuries as high-technology (read: not science, even though it relies on scientific findings), art, high-class food, etc., make life more worthwhile. Strip any form of entertainment or luxury out of your life. Not even the noblest forms of entertainment like literature or classical music can make it--just to be clear. Imagine a life without music, films, books, video games, etc.

The worth of life for a cognitively adept being (a person, so to speak) will be diminished incredibly.

If science makes life possible to live for some, it is entertainment that makes us want to live it in the first place, and is thus the more fundamental of the two.

By the way, I consider technology to be a luxury and thus in the same category as the arts and entertainment. It makes lives easier and better to live, basically.
#112 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
>>#83 Ah, I tend to not see em then. I usually ignore the topic altogether as the issue is pretty thoroughly figured out and there is yet to be a logical argument to justify why so many people that cannot afford an education on their own go for a degree path that may be limiting and then get tossed into a field that is very competitive/restricted. All the while its encouraged just because it's a "degree". I kinda just stopped by because there was a large amount of text so it seemed interesting.

Before I continue I would like to point out that when I state "the sciences" I am referring to just about anything under that umbrella term, from highly sophisticated technological feats to monitoring the natural fauna and how it functions.

On to this thread: Entertainment is definitely fundamental to humanity and society. We prize our works of art, construction and anything overall appealing to the eye and exciting. Hell, that's something that has been found/passed through the centuries. Past civilizations had their own forms of entertainment whether it be art, games or something more sexual or morbid, it seems to be present throughout history. A life without all forms of entertainment would indeed be bad, all work and no play makes jack a dull boy and all that. Boredom inevitably leads to other ,less savory, emotions and in turn, actions.

I can't say the same for science as we could be cavemen, completely dependent on nature for food and shelter, and we would prefer to mess around, beat the shit out of one another or other entertaining crap, rather than starting a fire, building a shelter and growing crops/setting traps. We supposedly did do that for quite some time, our improvements leading to what we now consider "society"(1st world at least) is relatively new for how long we've been growing and developing.

I personally view science as the more important of the two as when it really boils down to it, if humanity were to encounter some event and we had to rebuild, restructure or make some advancement, science will always fill that role, not entertainment. Science is needed to enjoy entertainment (In a modern sense, ofc there are still peoples that are unaware that the outside world exists and they have their own entertainment, but it is by no means anything that we would find acceptable. As you stated "music, films, books, video games, etc.".) while the contribution that entertainment provides to science is possibly inspiration as imagination is rampant in both and highly needed, but the more input and information one gets, the more they may be inspired to create. Entertainment often displays various things that we aspire to do one day, and science is there to possibly make that happen Still waiting on my damn flying car*, its 2016 FFS! *Legal and affordable as im a poor SOB. .

In the end I view them as food and water. Both are great (In moderation ofc) and we need them to survive normally. The difference being that water is more important as it facilitates the foods growth and allows more options. You can also go longer without food than water (As in in if shit hits the fan, we would have to try and get everything stable and back to normal before indulging in entertainment, in most situations at least as electronics are a huge part of it.).

Last thing I would like to add is that I fail to see technology as a luxury. Are you talking about cellphones, vidya and big anime tiddys or other technological advancements? I dont consider it a luxury since we require it to live as we do now, even going back to subsistence farming it would be hell as we wold lack modified crops, automated harvesters and processors, land and not to mention being restricted to daytime functions. Humanity cant live without tech at our current scale. Whether we like or not, it has become a need. Not all of it, but a hella large portion of it. Other than a few cases, I dont see how tech goes into entertainment.

To each their own though.
#115 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
As for your first paragraph: I must add that not many people bash art, literature, and such things. Actually, the extreme majority don't. Maybe I'm being a little over-dramatic. I swear: it is only the hypocrisy that upsets me, not the non-arguments anyone may give.

"from highly sophisticated technological feats to monitoring the natural fauna and how it functions."

That is a fair definition of "the sciences", but I think sometimes a certain distinction must be made between pure sciences and applied ones (mainly technology). Science is the study of the physical world--just as storytelling, history and literature are the study of people and their lives. Technology is more of a luxury; it makes life more enjoyable and easy--kind of like music, poetry, games and visual arts, whose purpose is to be beautiful and enjoyable.

"Boredom inevitably leads to other ,less savory, emotions and in turn, actions."

I agree with this whole paragraph, but would like to add that it's not only boredom that might be a catalyst for bad actions. Literature and fiction in general forces people to think about life and usually confronts them with situations in which people have very hard choices to make. If people are not used to getting out of their heads and experiencing important--I could almost say perilous--fictional situations, they will be most likely doomed to make bad choices in the future. Storytelling gives us an amazing frame of reference to live our own lives, while being emotionally engaging and entertaining throughout.

As for your next paragraph: I think science, technology and entertainment are all equally well natural phenomena of our species. It all started with the symbolic boom, which produced in our brains capacity and tendency for language (communicating symbolically) and higher cognition for day-to-day problem solving. Technology is basically problem-solving through prevention. It makes life easier for us, and it's great. As for science, it is basically our inherent curiosity as to the natural world that surrounds us. As for art, it is the appreciation for human creativity and beauty. Finally, as for entertainment, it is, at least in part, curiosity as to possible situations, ideas, etc.

I do not think entertainment provides anything for science (but maybe a little, as you mention--I'm not sure... Seems like a long shot...), and you are definitely right that technology, yet again, facilitates entertainment and makes it more enjoyable. Entertainment is, in my opinion, a fundamental thing in itself. Like friendship, love, and more base pleasures.

Your analogy with food and water is pretty great, frankly. Very artful of you. No, but seriously: very well said.

As for technology not being a luxury: it's about it not being a complete necessity. A cellphone is arguably as useful as a windmill. Well, okay, not really, but both are very useful. And the fact that something has become a need--like internet, for instance--is not the same as saying that it is fundamentally essential to humanity. Entertainment is fundamental, and essential to a degree. Technology is a great asset. Science, on the other hand, is a natural inclination, which while not being completely and utterly essential, is one of the greatest things about our species (along with great works of art and literature, of course).

"To each their own though."

Yeah, but arguing is fun. Isn't it?
#121 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
"As for your first paragraph:"
Yeah, I dont hear it very often and when I do, its for censorship or pushing an ideology, nothing reasonable.

"That is a fair definition of "the sciences""
You are welcome to view it as you wish, but I still cannot make that distinction for all of technology. Maybe a small part of it that includes smart phones, common computers, household appliance, etc. But while all of that is common and they are luxuries, they do not even begin to display and represent what can be and has been done with science and technology. If you want to really get to science and tech, look at the military, look at the very tools we use to develop and cultivate modern society. Its not all just bullets and I-Beams. I cant see how something can be considered a luxury when society depends on it or risk implosion. We need the monoliths that drive development, we need the level of automation and resilience our modern crops and livestock have. It just does not make sense to me that technological advances can be considered luxuries when we would not exist as we do now. There's no way to view tech and not directly associate it with science, the damn name is "Science of craft" for Christs sake.

"I do not think entertainment provides anything for science"
Eh, yeah, it was a long shit. Thats why I was saying possibly, as its just another influence someone may use for inspiration.

"Your analogy with food and water"
TYVM!

"As for technology not being a luxury: it's about it not being a complete necessity"
I agree that it needs to be a necessity to be fundamental for humanity, that's why the examples I have given thus far involve development and food production, not the internet on its lonesome. It can also be argued that you as an individual dont need technology, and its true. Subsistence farming is a thing and many use it. However, if we apply that to the entire population, we have a problem. Take away high rises, advances in food production and related technologies from both and you now have a populous that is to share the land with many others. We will be restricted by who lives where, what is grown and made, and what is traded. Also, what desires are pursued. Many will not make it and die just due to sheer numbers. Society and humanity as a whole cannot do without modern technology, nor could we have come this far as a whole without it, and its not the internet and facebook.

"Yeah, but arguing is fun. Isn't it?"
Arguing makes it seem too heated, more like a discussion, no? God, its like crack sometimes.
#123 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
Yes, discussion is a better term. And although it's fun, I honestly can't find anything to add/try to contradict as for your points.

I agree with everything you say.

If you want to bring any new subject up for the sake of discussion (or if you simply have any other questions), then please feel free to reply further.

I'll lay off the crack for now and respond tomorrow (or maybe tonight) if anything.

Until then, have a good one; and if it's the end of this discussion, then I hope I'll see you around so that we can discuss more interesting stuff.
#132 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
Same, was fun, ty for the convo. Don't have much to add that would be meaningful. The only thing that would be left talking about would be the perceived importance of an arts degree to one in STEM and which one is more beneficial for society. But that's on another comment and up for continuation at any time.

Peace, have a safe one!
OFC imma be around, no one leaves FJ. Intact at least....
#122 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
Shot* I meant long shot.....
#124 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
Too late, niggur.
#52 - liru (04/09/2016) [-]
Now I agree that Art degrees have their place in the world. They involve all sorts of categories from product advertisements to writing grants and shit, not just looking at shapes like above mentioned.

That being said you just compared shit hella bad, STEM fields go into way more then Nasa... I feel like your leaving out a lot of the worlds major industries. NASA is just some government science project, lots of STEM degrees go into companies like Intel GE and shit in the hospitals and whatnot. And its not about how much you can make, its about how many reliable jobs their are available for degree holders to take. The joke about art degrees came from the fact that so many people who have those types degrees don't use them. However a lot of those degrees where not the type of art degree that pay out and shit...

But nowadays it just seems like people bash on arts as a whole without understanding that arts cover a wide range of stuff that offer a lot of research intensive jobs, not just poem writing and picture painting. Shit I got a Science degree and my girls got a arts degree and shes looking at making more then me here soon.
#82 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
Yeah, sorry about that. I was making a general, big-brush statement just to compare science/technology to arts/entertainment.

Both are extremely important for the welfare of individuals and society.

I'm just getting annoyed by STEM-lords getting pissy about the arts, especially in the hypocritical way that they probably spend >75% of their free time enjoying some form of entertainment.

It's genuinely retarded.
#58 - miasaki (04/09/2016) [-]
I dont really see people bashing the arts too often tbh. I see them constantly hating on the degree, for reasons mentioned, but not the field/industry/career path as a whole. People just assume that the degree represents the entire arts field for some odd reason.Both of the peeps Miguel seems to be mad at, directly stated the majors themselves were an issue, and they are. So many go in there for a possibly sub par education and then are left to try and find work, only to see that they and a couple hundred others are going for the same job. Those that get it are sometimes based on the degree, but many have been at it for a while and have one hell of an portfolio and network to get their foot in the door. More often than not, the average individual does not come out of Uni with all of this set up.

No degree represents the fields that they are applicable in, in terms of possibilities and usefulness. A lot of it is up to the individual, some have what it takes and go far, some don't and others are motivated and have skill but just get utterly shat on and discouraged. This applies to just about any career path you may chose. The issue with the arts is that its bottle-necked for the upper echelon, they have the pick of the herd as for what gets in and whats pushed to the side or back of the line. If you manage to fk up to the point that someone does not like you, they can ruin you. Shit sucks, but thems the brakes for some unfortunate soul.

That being said, the arts are very important, they just have a lot of bad influences and its difficult to go from Uni to the field, running. It does not help that so many are encouraged to go into the field, further clogging it.
#83 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
Honestly, you make really good points.

I don't support art degrees either...

But some STEM-lords do bash on art as a field, and I'm simply trying to expose their hypocrisy/retarded-ness.
#114 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
One thing I forgot to add to the last comment, so Ill add it here as it pertains to this:
How do you "expose their hypocrisy/retarded-ness.". The peeps I mentioned stated that the degree itself is shit and does not benefit society, and they are not wrong. That degree in no way directly helps society. Its not needed. Not to say people cant do what they want with their time and money, but its not something that is needed to get into the art's as a career or hobby.

You yourself stated you dont support the damn things, so what are you trying to point out about them? That since they said "art major" or some variation they mean any and every piece of art hat has been created?
#117 - migueldecervantes (04/10/2016) [-]
What degree in itself helps society? I don't think you really thought this one through.

"get a degree that actually helps society" does not pertain to the degree itself, but to the career path that ensues. You are being strangely pedantic right now.
#131 - miasaki (04/10/2016) [-]
Well the degree itself is just a apiece of paper that pretty much represents that you have knowledge on this particular matter and you can perform related tasks in some capacity, it is more of a certification that you obtain to get to a larger goal than an actual gauge on intelligence or usefulness. Hence why accreditation is a thing that exists and IVY league colleges are considered better in some fields.

That being said, no one actually thinks when the statement "Get a degree that helps society" means "Get a piece of paper that benefits humanity as a whole.". If they do, then there's plenty wrong with them, but im yet to see anyone argue that point and im assuming you are not, and we are looking at this in two fairly different way, as much of the conversations thus far has shown.

The degree represents the education behind it. That education leads to you going into society and either joining the work force or applying it elsewhere (Some people go and do work for organizations elsewhere, like doctors/engineers without borders or self study and research) Not many people that get a legit degree in the STEM field have the issue of finding work as its everywhere (Some certainly do, not everything is open all the time, but its far less common). The same cannot be said for pretty much anything in the Art's. Jobs are not plentiful and the path of self employment is questionable and rocky (Like may other options for self employment, but you now have to compete with people that do it in their free time, firms, and those that do it full time, on their own.).

Someone with a degree from the umbrella that is STEM will be far more beneficial to society as whole than someone with a degree in arts. That's not to say that the arts folk cannot provide anything of value or use, as we have discussed previously, they certainly do. However, the degree itself usually holds no value to anyone other than the person that holds it (Some employers want to see it, but a portfolio is almost always needed and shows more of the skill set the person has.). Where an engineer or Doctor can get their degree which outlines the skill sets they have learned, an artist can either do well for the task at hand or not (Some of them get fairly specific, degree wise, but those have their own very niche group and goals, sometimes more limited as they are even more specialized.), a portfolio is usually a good indicator for people looking for certain attributes. In both cases the run of the mill individual will be instructed to perform certain tasks deemed needed by others. Not every scientist, artist or designer is doing an experiment or making something of their own design and the typically linear nature to mathematics and science are far more rigid than the arts.

""get a degree that actually helps society" does not pertain to the degree itself,"
No, it pertains to the degree. As stated above and from just about anyone that spends more than 2 minutes on the topic, those with art's degrees will be more limited than those with a degree in STEM. Your degree does not directly relate to your career path, its just a good approximation and estimate for the next step. There are many people that have degrees and are in fields that have absolutely nothing to do with them (Take a look at many arts, business, and psychology majors). Taking that into account, an arts degree becomes even more limiting compared to a STEM degree, there is no way one can justify the statement that they are equally as useful or needed when its obvious that we have an influx of one and a shortage of the other no matter how many people are pumped through.

Im being pedantic because im trying to clarify what you are saying. Neither of the peeps I mentioned were being hypocritical at the time afaik, idk their life and choices, how is that statement justified? Also, its not retarded, in terms of the average persons future in a full blown arts program, its not looking too good.
#30 - AnomynousUser (04/09/2016) [-]
#37 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
Since you're quite happy with laughing, maybe you'd be interested in answering some points in my response to mcrut (comment #35)?
User avatar
#40 - AnomynousUser (04/09/2016) [-]
That looks like a lot of words to read, which I don't feel like doing. I'm just gonna guess you are butthurt that people laugh at your degree and are going to justify it by saying there are things like cartoons, animus, advertisements, movies, etc., but you'll only focus on things that are art, rather than things that require an art degree because the best and most efficient ways to learn art are usually going to be through self-teaching, practice, and guidance that doesn't require 4 years and $30k of debt (the US national average). Most people who get art degrees usually confuse people's mocking of their degrees with them mocking art as a field, despite the fact that the vast majority of us aren't mocking you for going into art, but majoring in it.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong about what you said since it was too long for me to care about after just posting a laughing Roshi video.
#41 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
I did not major in art. Saying "switch to a major that does something for society" is not an attack on the major, but on the field.

It's easy to avoid the actual issues when you are getting wrecked.
User avatar
#43 - AnomynousUser (04/09/2016) [-]
Ah, yes. Much rekt. You sure showed me. Ignore what I just said about my not caring what field you work in, how I stated my position of mocking the major rather than the field, and tell me more about how I'm attacking the field rather than the major.
#47 - migueldecervantes (04/09/2016) [-]
You did not attack the field, but you seemed to find that other retard's comment quite funny. I guess I assumed you agreed with it.

At any rate, I see now that we agree. You may proceed with your daily affairs.
#24 - Just had a game 10-15 and we came back to tie it. 04/05/2016 on The best feeling in CSGO 0