mba Vs pgdm



  • The Difference between MBA vs PGDM is the MBA, short for Master of Business Administration, is a Post Graduate Degree in Management. PGDM stands for Post Graduate Diploma in Management. MBA is a Master’s degree and only recognized universities or colleges affiliated with such universities are allowed to offer a degree in Business Administration. Such universities follow one single curriculum designed for the course and offer other major degrees like bachelor and Doctorate. PGDM is a course offered by colleges that are not affiliated with recognized universities or are not authorized to offer degrees. And therefore they offer Diploma courses which in a broader view come at the same level as an MBA. MBA and PGDM are both business-orientated courses. The main aim of the courses is to equip a person who wants to move up in the hierarchy and enter into the management field you wish to pursue higher education abroad, a PGDM is considered to be a diploma, while a university-affiliated MBA is counted as a degree, giving you a better standing. In India, as well as overseas, both MBA and PGDM courses are regarded as having equal value when it comes to career prospects. For more information visit IMT HYDERABAD.


  • administrators

    @'matthacker':

    My point, can you point out one that says cause of death is drug addiction?

    point for what exactly? why do I have to prove deaths with cause of drug addiction to you?

    @'matthacker':

    no, I'm saying it's less harmful

    How would you define it is less harmful? I'm curious since all the report I've seen concerning drug related deaths never say drug addiction is the cause of death. This is why i say there is a difference between the impact of addiction and the impact of the material.

    example: obesity = lots of death, porn = not many deaths , that makes porn less harmful

    the "harm" of porn that I see does not come from porn itself, it's the guilt trip that society inflicts upon itself, by turning a natural behaviour (sexual drive) into something that's supposed to be "dirty", it's like saying don't eat even if you're hungry cause eating is "evil" and makes you fat



  • You know Channel 4 did another documentary recently called "date my pornstar"

    I'm sure you guys could have another 3 page discussion from that starting point :D



  • @'miro':

    no, when I made the statement I in fact stated that it in of it self is not enough evidence, now refute my real argument which is the number of deaths for example caused by addictions such as obesity, gaming, alcohol, gambling, etc vs porn

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drug-related_deaths

    OK. This is one list I could find listing drug related deaths. Can you find one that is caused by drug/substance addiction?

    A copy of one recent Coroner's report. If you look at the cause of death, it is certainly not drug addiction

    My point, can you point out one that says cause of death is drug addiction?

    @'miro':

    no, I'm saying it's less harmful

    How would you define it is less harmful? I'm curious since all the report I've seen concerning drug related deaths never say drug addiction is the cause of death. This is why i say there is a difference between the impact of addiction and the impact of the material.



  • TIL - Addictive behavior can lead to addiction!

    In all seriousness Matt it seems like you're splitting hairs here. Its painfully obvious that minors can be more susceptible to forming and addiction than adults. How much more, up for debate, one that probably won't yield quantifiable results.

    There are too many variables in your "point". I am not sure where your from, but in the US underage drinking is like a national sport. The vast majority of "minors" do it especially at the college level. While this does lead to some addiction, its not on pandemic levels. Keep in mind the definition of "minor". Minors (in regards to alcohol) allowed are legally able to enlist in the military and go into combat, and yet cannot purchase/consume booze.

    Is that minor at 17 years 364 days, that much more immature than someone who just turned 18? What about 17.25? 16.9? The truth, is that many people begin making adult decisions well before the predetermined adulthood marker, and several are late bloomers. The line exists because it must, but its not an all encompassing definition of mental maturity. In the states we frequently prosecute minors as adults, because we expect a certain level of competence and maturity even before the age cutoff. Granted this is somewhat controversial but it highlights the point of maturity being dynamic, and subjective to the individual.

    I am not sure why you deny religon's impact on human sexuality and through that porn. Religions specifically Catholism and Islam have a large sustaining impact on sexual attitudes across the globe. Sexual desires stemming from the "original sin" are seen as a flaw on humanity. Sodom and Gomorrah. Societies based on Catholic dogma punished sexual activities beyond the scope of the bible (adultery, premarital sex, buggery etc). The censorship of artwork depicting the human body under the reign of Catholic governments. The total shrouding of women in Islamic cultures. The holiest people in the catholic church are celibate. You don't need a scripture quote to see its influence.

    Ultimately what Miro is saying here is that there are far worse vices out there to worry about. Not all addictions are equal, a workaholic vs a crack addict, behavioral vs chemical. Can porn addiction be harmful? Sure, anything in excess has the potential to be harmful; which we all know. So whats your point?


  • administrators

    @'matthacker':

    Judging from your stance, I believe you refute the second point.

    no, read my response carefully

    @'matthacker':

    The 'far less' argument.

    If you are referring to your own experiences with porn when you were young as a rule/evidence or proof, it can not be applied as a general rule. Each case and individual are different (personal values, individual susceptibility, presence of a support system).

    In this thread alone, by self admission, there are two different statements. Just because you didn't have a negative experience does not mean no one else did. Further more, the existence of negative experiences means we can not simply dismiss the impacts of porn exposure to minors altogether.

    no, when I made the statement I in fact stated that it in of it self is not enough evidence, now refute my real argument which is the number of deaths for example caused by addictions such as obesity, gaming, alcohol, gambling, etc vs porn

    @'matthacker':

    The 'impact' argument

    People suffering addictive disorders are generally in denial of it. Left undiscovered and untreated, it becomes harder to treat. It might not be directly (physically) harmful, but such behavior can cause problems in various aspects of life. This is the impact of addiction.

    It is different to the impact of the addictive materials itself. Consuming too much alcohol/drugs will have physical impacts even if you haven't consumed them before (and thus is not addicted to it)..

    yes, we all agree all addictions are harmful and porn is less harmful then many others, you're not making any new points, how many times do you want us all to agree that addiction - any addiction is harmful?

    @'matthacker':

    The 'compared to other addiction' argument.

    Unlike other addictions (eating disorders, internet/computer usage, gaming) porn addiction in minors has definite, legal ramifications. I believe many countries have laws governing the production, sale/distribution and to some extent, consumption. For a minor (someone below the legal age - 18 years old generally), watching pornography is a criminal offense.

    Typically first time offenders (those actively seeking pornographic materials on their own volition) will only receive a reprimand. Second offense (basically, repeated) are generally viewed as a more serious matter. It can be an indicator of addiction, implying the inability to control behavior/impulses. More serious is the possible disregard for law and/or law enforcement.

    I find that last post intriguing though. You say 'this can apply to any addiction not just porn addiction' and yet uses it to say that porn addiction is different than others.

    no, I'm saying it's less harmful

    first of all, I wouldn't encourage anyone to break the law if porn is illegal in their country under certain circumstances, not because they are in danger of a harmful porn habit, but because they're in danger of an intolerant government

    secondly, the fact that porn is illegal doesn't mean anything unless there are arguments to support the fact, for example homosexuality, sexuality outside of marriage were illegal while slavery, segregation, censorship were legal in virtually all countries… governments have gotten it wrong all the time and still do

    thirdly attempting to regulate the natural instinct of sexual expression is the crime here, not porn... it's like saying stop eating cause you might get fat... sex and porn are not dirty shameful habits, they're a part of what make us human and most would agree make life much more enjoyable :)



  • @'miro':

    what this? sorry… invalid, firstly you already shoved this under the 'addiction' umbrella (which we've dealt with) and secondly this can apply to any addiction not just porn addiction, so no 2nd point

    Judging from your stance, I believe you refute the second point.

    @'miro':

    Porn can be addictive. Porn addiction has far less impact on people than lots of other addictions, that goes for all people including minors.

    The 'far less' argument.

    If you are referring to your own experiences with porn when you were young as a rule/evidence or proof, it can not be applied as a general rule. Each case and individual are different (personal values, individual susceptibility, presence of a support system).

    In this thread alone, by self admission, there are two different statements. Just because you didn't have a negative experience does not mean no one else did. Further more, the existence of negative experiences means we can not simply dismiss the impacts of porn exposure to minors altogether.

    The 'impact' argument

    People suffering addictive disorders are generally in denial of it. Left undiscovered and untreated, it becomes harder to treat. It might not be directly (physically) harmful, but such behavior can cause problems in various aspects of life. This is the impact of addiction.

    It is different to the impact of the addictive materials itself. Consuming too much alcohol/drugs will have physical impacts even if you haven't consumed them before (and thus is not addicted to it)..

    The 'compared to other addiction' argument.

    Unlike other addictions (eating disorders, internet/computer usage, gaming) porn addiction in minors has definite, legal ramifications. I believe many countries have laws governing the production, sale/distribution and to some extent, consumption. For a minor (someone below the legal age - 18 years old generally), watching pornography is a criminal offense.

    Typically first time offenders (those actively seeking pornographic materials on their own volition) will only receive a reprimand. Second offense (basically, repeated) are generally viewed as a more serious matter. It can be an indicator of addiction, implying the inability to control behavior/impulses. More serious is the possible disregard for law and/or law enforcement.

    I find that last post intriguing though. You say 'this can apply to any addiction not just porn addiction' and yet uses it to say that porn addiction is different than others.



  • … is splitting hair addictive ?
    empirical testing on this forum seems to prove it is.


  • administrators

    honestly, I'm surprised you're not critiquing my punctuation at this point, lol

    no, you're only getting half a point, because addiction was your only point so far, but I have to deduct half a point because it's a very weak point, as I've demonstrated previously… and that's being generous, cause I agreed to addiction from the beginning, so I'm doing you a favour for even counting it :)

    @'matthacker':

    Echoing Fasdeviant, exposure at a young age (think formative years) where one is more prone to impulses (due to hormon imbalances) may cause a destructive pattern of behavior to 'sink in' and become a personality trait. More so if there are physical attributes that makes one more susceptible to addictive behaviors.

    I ask again for clarity's sake - do you refute this?

    what this? sorry… invalid, firstly you already shoved this under the 'addiction' umbrella (which we've dealt with) and secondly this can apply to any addiction not just porn addiction, so no 2nd point

    so matt are you going to refute any of my points? or maybe bring up at least one solid point?



  • @'miro':

    Porn can be addictive. Porn addiction has far less impact on people than lots of other addictions, that goes for all people including minors.

    Addiction in any form is unacceptable and people who are addicted should seek treatment and be helped to find relief. Clear enough?

    Now respond to all my points :)

    Nope. It's not clear whether or not you refute the second point. I would categorize a simple yes, i agree or no, i disagree as a straight, direct answer.

    Btw, you can't use the argument of porn addiction having less impact as a reason to refute my point.


  • administrators

    Porn can be addictive. Porn addiction has far less impact on people than lots of other addictions, that goes for all people including minors.

    Addiction in any form is unacceptable and people who are addicted should seek treatment and be helped to find relief. Clear enough?

    Now respond to all my points :)



  • @'miro':

    matt, that won't help you. If you make me list your half point, there's no credibility lost on my part, I'm simply going to list all the many points I've made so far. It's not about getting the other to admit to a semi wrong statement, it's about the presentation of a better list of arguments overall.

    What half point? There is no semi-wrong here.

    I'm trying to understand what you're saying and the logic behind it. You agree that porn can be considered addictive. Now, from what you're saying about my second point, it can be interpreted that you consider addiction in minors is a normal thing or at the very least acceptable, using impact as a determinative reason (not as destructive/dangerous/harmful).

    Here's the my original statement on the matter.

    @'matthacker':

    Echoing Fasdeviant, exposure at a young age (think formative years) where one is more prone to impulses (due to hormon imbalances) may cause a destructive pattern of behavior to 'sink in' and become a personality trait. More so if there are physical attributes that makes one more susceptible to addictive behaviors.

    I ask again for clarity's sake - do you refute this?


  • administrators

    @'matthacker':

    I'd like a more straight, direct answer.

    Further more, I have made two points. The second point is there in case you refute/disagree with the first one. Since you agree with the first one, you can read the second point like this : 'exposure to addictive materials at a very young age may cause a destructive pattern of behavior'. Worded as such, do you refute the second point?

    matt, that won't help you. If you make me list your half point, there's no credibility lost on my part, I'm simply going to list all the many points I've made so far. It's not about getting the other to admit to a semi wrong statement, it's about the presentation of a better list of arguments overall.



  • @'miro':

    well apparently you made one point, which I don't refute, however the important part is that it's not a very strong point if you compare porn addiction to other addictions

    I'd like a more straight, direct answer.

    Further more, I have made two points. The second point is there in case you refute/disagree with the first one. Since you agree with the first one, you can read the second point like this : 'exposure to addictive materials at a very young age may cause a destructive pattern of behavior'. Worded as such, do you refute the second point?


  • administrators

    @'matthacker':

    So just to be completely clear here, does this mean you do not refute both points?

    well apparently you made one point, which I don't refute, however the important part is that it's not a very strong point if you compare porn addiction to other addictions



  • @'miro':

    Well ok fine, but I was hoping you were going to make another point other than addiction, which is only one point then.

    And yes I do agree any addiction should be treated regardless of how severe it is. However of course severity will play a role, an addiction that causes 300,000 deaths deserves a lot more attention than one that causes a handful.

    Also porn is a very different addictive behaviour than drugs. Porn satisfies the urge to masturbate, which is a natural human trait unlike drugs. In that respect it's more like over eating, which is huge problem, but I don't see society igniting a witch hunt over obesity.

    The best comparison are other forms of entertainment like TV or games, extremely addictive yet are we preventing access? World of Warcraft for example has just a Teen rating.

    The bottom line is porn, though addictive for some has nowhere near the destructive outcomes as other perfectly legal additive substances or behaviours and yet it garners far more prejudice and hate, a dreadful side effect of society's stigma.

    The major destructive outcome comes from religion and society that brain washes (and I don't use the term lightly) people into thinking they should be ashamed of their natural instincts. That's where you get the situation of feeling guilt over something that ought to be a happy human experience. That's when you get figure makers ripping off genitals and selling them as "human" in case little children may be confused over the fact that god forbid a man has penis and a women a vagina. And you get parents that find the thought of sexuality so offensive they forget to tell their kids that porn is just fantasy.

    thank you for listening :D

    So just to be completely clear here, does this mean you do not refute both points?



  • @'miro':

    The best comparison are other forms of entertainment like TV or games, extremely addictive yet are we preventing access?

    Actually, South Corea does care: http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1983234,00.html

    But the addiction argument feels to me as a smoke screen - while the masses get convinced, it obfuscates the social synergies that pushes the behavior.

    @'miro':

    The major destructive outcome comes from religion and society that brain washes (and I don't use the term lightly) people into thinking they should be ashamed of their natural instincts. That's where you get the situation of feeling guilt over something that ought to be a happy human experience.

    Puritan societies seems to produce & consume more porn (link link)
    The medical discourse asks for a remedy while the heart of the matter seems a socio-political and asks for a change of paradigm (yes, a revolution - but change of paradigm sounded mostly harmless, hehehe).

    side note: you may be interrested in reading http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/virtual-pornography-the-consumptionproduction-of-openly-notreal-porn-44912.html

    about sex & religion (you can skip up to 8:32)
    http://youtu.be/A4m5HvRgI6c


  • administrators

    Well ok fine, but I was hoping you were going to make another point other than addiction, which is only one point then.

    And yes I do agree any addiction should be treated regardless of how severe it is. However of course severity will play a role, an addiction that causes 300,000 deaths deserves a lot more attention than one that causes a handful.

    Also porn is a very different addictive behaviour than drugs. Porn satisfies the urge to masturbate, which is a natural human trait unlike drugs. In that respect it's more like over eating, which is huge problem, but I don't see society igniting a witch hunt over obesity.

    The best comparison are other forms of entertainment like TV or games, extremely addictive yet are we preventing access? World of Warcraft for example has just a Teen rating.

    The bottom line is porn, though addictive for some has nowhere near the destructive outcomes as other perfectly legal additive substances or behaviours and yet it garners far more prejudice and hate, a dreadful side effect of society's stigma.

    The major destructive outcome comes from religion and society that brain washes (and I don't use the term lightly) people into thinking they should be ashamed of their natural instincts. That's where you get the situation of feeling guilt over something that ought to be a happy human experience. That's when you get figure makers ripping off genitals and selling them as "human" in case little children may be confused over the fact that god forbid a man has penis and a women a vagina. And you get parents that find the thought of sexuality so offensive they forget to tell their kids that porn is just fantasy.

    thank you for listening :D



  • @'miro':

    Point 1 we're in agreement here, no need to refute.
    Point 2 I will very likely refute this one, but before I do you need to make your case. So far you've made a bold assertion without evidence.

    Your evidence for point 2 please. That could in fact be a discussion with substance.

    Oh and while I've agreed with point 1, I've already shown that the negative impact of this addictive behaviour is far less severe then many other addictions, even though porn garners likely far more negative feedback for it.

    There's no need for evidence for point 2 if you agree on point 1.

    The reason? If you agree porn can be addictive, exposure of such materials to a minor (a person below legal age) should not be done.

    For example, you do not subject minors to addictive substances such as alcohol, drugs or tobacco unless there is a valid reason to do so. One example would be pain killers to mitigate pain in serious injury or in the event of surgery. Even then, you are required to ask for parental permission since a minor is legally incapable of giving consent. I believe there is very little justification of subjecting minors to tobacco and porn, even if you have parental consent to do so (which I highly doubt will be given).

    Since porn is (or if you prefer, can be) addictive, allowing minors access to addictive materials is questionable behavior at the very least and is considered illegal in some countries. Therefore, the degree of impact is in fact, irrelevant and can not be used as an argument (one addictive materials is 'less harmful' than others).

    In the case where porn exposure to a minor has occurred, much like with any cases with addictive substances, an assessment must be made of just how much damage/impact is present and steps are taken for rehabilitation. Each case will be different, since there are a lot of factors involved (mental state, personality traits, susceptibility, environment, potential for future exposures etc).


  • administrators

    @'matthacker':

    Ok here's the deal I'll answer all your statements above, I'm happy to waste a bit of time on this, but I want you to do one thing, tell me in a very quick summary what your point(s) is/ are? point 1, 2, 3 one sentence very simple, I'm especially interested in any points that haven't been refuted. You just said you've made your point, so what is it?

    Because I fail to see any point you've made that hasn't been refuted, so I want that clarified before I spend any more time on this. Sound reasonable?

    My 1st point is that porn can be addictive, even if it's not a drug. My 2nd point is that exposure to porn at a very young age may cause a destructive pattern of behavior.

    Do you refute this?

    Point 1 we're in agreement here, no need to refute.
    Point 2 I will very likely refute this one, but before I do you need to make your case. So far you've made a bold assertion without evidence.

    @'matthacker':

    Let's be clear. I made an assumption not a declaration of fact. I do agree there's wasn't a need for me to do so, it didn't add great value to the discussion. And if you're saying the assumption is not true then I'm happy to say it was a wrong assumption.

    Do you admit to making the wrong assumption? Just in case they are true, I've asked you to provide evidence to the contrary - that I have said porn has no value.

    yes, I've already admitted to making a wrong assumption, in the very sentence you quote, and no I'm not saying that you said porn has no value

    Your evidence for point 2 please. That could in fact be a discussion with substance.
    Oh and while I've agreed with point 1, I've already shown that the negative impact of this addictive behaviour is far less severe then many other addictions, even though porn garners likely far more negative feedback for it.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NodeBB was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.