4 ms·

Eh, that's pretty fallacious reasoning. No one's going to hire a specialist to put up a poster, and it's not like a school is going to allow someone to deface

Eh, that's pretty fallacious reasoning. No one's going to hire a specialist to put up a poster, and it's not like a school is going to allow someone to deface whatever else is on the walls, so it's not like any extra effort would be expended there. Whatever labor required would almost certainly have been expended on some other too-insignificant-to-track task (like putting up yet another "go sports team!"/"officer friendly is your friend!" poster), so it's just a substitute X with Y type thing.

eesmith 4y ago
It's not fallacious. You even agree that it costs the school money. You are correct that it's a small amount, but it's still a cost to the school. If it doesn't benefit the school then it's a waste of the school's money. Also, most school boosterism/Officer-friendly type posters aren't framed, while this law requires the school to put up a framed poster if that's what someone donates. I wonder what the school will do if it's framed in glass.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > It's not fallacious. You even agree that it costs the school money. It's not going to cost them money unless they're actually going to spend more, and they won't. Putting up one poster instead of another isn't spending more, preventing vandalism you're already preventing isn't spending more, etc.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > instead of another Yes, while putting up a poster on a blank wall is spending more. Replacing a poster + tape with a framed poster + fasteners is also spending more. My point is vineyardmike only looked at acquisition cost, not TCO. I don't see how you can be so sure there is only cost substitution, and that there is no additional cost. We even read that Chaz Stevens raised $14K to distribute Arabic versions of the sign to schools. Someone in each school needs to receive the sign and decide to toss it. That's a additional cost which wasn't there before. Again, agreed - it's small. But I don't agree with your assessment that it's zero.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > I don't see how you can be so sure there is only cost substitution, and that there is no additional cost. Because that's how the world works. Schools spend money to have capability to to miscellaneous tasks, things like putting up random posters. Adding one more tiny task, realistically, isn't going to cause them to spend more money, by any reasonable definition. At worst it will bump out a lower priority task (of probably dubious value), but it's just as likely someone will just spend a little less slack time staring at their phone. tl;dr: it won't cost more, because they're already going to spend the money, one way or another. > We even read that Chaz Stevens raised $14K to distribute Arabic versions of the sign to schools. Which is money the school isn't spending. IIRC, the whole point of the thread required the posters be paid for with private funds. > Someone in each school needs to receive the sign and decide to toss it. > That's a additional cost which wasn't there before. That person has always been there, getting paid to handle random stuff like this: there's no additional cost, it was always there.

eesmith 4y ago

It's not fallacious. You even agree that it costs the school money. You are correct that it's a small amount, but it's still a cost to the school. If it doesn't benefit the school then it's a waste of the school's money. Also, most school boosterism/Officer-friendly type posters aren't framed, while this law requires the school to put up a framed poster if that's what someone donates. I wonder what the school will do if it's framed in glass.

tablespoon 4y ago
> It's not fallacious. You even agree that it costs the school money. It's not going to cost them money unless they're actually going to spend more, and they won't. Putting up one poster instead of another isn't spending more, preventing vandalism you're already preventing isn't spending more, etc.
- eesmith 4y ago
  > instead of another Yes, while putting up a poster on a blank wall is spending more. Replacing a poster + tape with a framed poster + fasteners is also spending more. My point is vineyardmike only looked at acquisition cost, not TCO. I don't see how you can be so sure there is only cost substitution, and that there is no additional cost. We even read that Chaz Stevens raised $14K to distribute Arabic versions of the sign to schools. Someone in each school needs to receive the sign and decide to toss it. That's a additional cost which wasn't there before. Again, agreed - it's small. But I don't agree with your assessment that it's zero.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > I don't see how you can be so sure there is only cost substitution, and that there is no additional cost. Because that's how the world works. Schools spend money to have capability to to miscellaneous tasks, things like putting up random posters. Adding one more tiny task, realistically, isn't going to cause them to spend more money, by any reasonable definition. At worst it will bump out a lower priority task (of probably dubious value), but it's just as likely someone will just spend a little less slack time staring at their phone. tl;dr: it won't cost more, because they're already going to spend the money, one way or another. > We even read that Chaz Stevens raised $14K to distribute Arabic versions of the sign to schools. Which is money the school isn't spending. IIRC, the whole point of the thread required the posters be paid for with private funds. > Someone in each school needs to receive the sign and decide to toss it. > That's a additional cost which wasn't there before. That person has always been there, getting paid to handle random stuff like this: there's no additional cost, it was always there.