|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:49:14 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:
>> By that logic, the money that I pay to buy a box of Fruit Loops goes to
>> the library, because some worker somewhere who benefits from my payment
>> for the cereal might someday go to school there and pay tuition, thus
>> "subsidizing" my access to the materials in the library? That's
>> tenuous at best.
>
> I disagree that my paragraph up there is tenuous. I do think your
> example is tenuous. I do agree that, formally, the formal proposition
> that expresses the argument is a contingency; so, indeed, formal logic
> alone will not give us further relevant knowledge.
There's really not a lot of difference between the two - the idea you're
proposing is that indirect payment (money going to someone from a
government grant that might go to creating something that might be kept
in the library) should "count" towards allowing anyone to use the library.
>> Question: Does Princeton let you go into the library without paying,
>> and just not let you borrow materials? I know with the Salt Lake City
>> public library, you don't need a library card to enter the library,
>> just to borrow materials.
>
> I didn't test it, but I don't think they'd see any problems in having
> random people reading books in there.
So then the only issue is that you cannot borrow materials. That reduces
the argument really since it's not a question of access.
> Incidentally, I think that they actually see a problem in opposing
> letting random people in. They would have to check everyone's cards upon
> entrance. A real pain in the ass, and surely to upset students. :-)
Agreed.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |