Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 President Trump
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 19

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1362 Posts

Posted - 02/20/2017 :  15:11:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Donald Trump is indeed a poster child (almost literally) of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Go to Top of Page

The Rat
SFN Regular

Canada
1333 Posts

Posted - 02/21/2017 :  19:53:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit The Rat's Homepage Send The Rat a Private Message  Reply with Quote
“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that.”

Yes, he really said that.

The man is an idiot.


Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.

You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II

Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2017 :  14:38:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Good grief. Do you really not understand that at $8/hr, people have a hard time trying to afford the decent clothes, resumé prep and other small things which might give them an opportunity for a higher-paying job? Having an income that allows you to pay your bills, put gas in the car and keep the phone turned on is the bare minimum needed to pursue better opportunities. That's damn sure NOT equality of outcome.
I never said I was against $15/hr, only that is equals outcomes for people.

If everyone has access to a roof over their heads, food, power, clothing, day care, health care, family planning, transportation and education, then everyone will have equal opportunities to succeed (note that "access to" doesn't mean "will use"). Success is not guaranteed, and some will scoff at good options to attempt riskier long-shots. But even then, failure shouldn't be a permanent condition.
I agree.

And yes, some people will choose to do the bare minimum and live off the hand-outs, but most will not. Most people who are currently on welfare of some sort don't want to be. They want jobs good enough that they don't require food stamps, for example. They want to not have had the accident that left them on disability. Because very few people want to live on the bare minimum. Have you ever seen, for example, section-8 housing?
I agree that people want to get off welfare. But they are also not stupid. If they can get more for being on welfare than at a job why would they get a job? 42% of welfare recipients participate in work activities. $15/hr would help this situation.
My concern for $15/hr is that less people will have jobs. Not that people will lose jobs, but there will be less new jobs available in the future as a result of the increased labor cost. Labor is like goods in that the more it costs the less demand there will be for it.

As for right-to-work, unions bust their asses to try to ensure their workers have access to a decent middle class life. People who refuse to join a union still get those benefits (including lawyers to fight their work-related grievances!), but without having to pay into the system. So no, it is right-to-work laws that enforce an equal outcomes on unequal participants. You've got that one exactly backwards.
People can join unions if they want, I don’t disagree that some of the unions have made life better for its members, my dad included. My beef is with the fact that someone has to pay money to an organization to get a job. This was one philosophy of Marxism and is anti free-markets.

If democrats really wanted equal opportunity wouldn't they be for eliminating inheritances? Doesn't a child of a rich family have more opportunity than a child from a poor family?
The problem is that the rich families have, for centuries, tried to ensure that those "other" kids cannot have the same opportunities, even if some other rich person paid their way.
So you agree with eliminating inheritances? Or no?

Brown-skinned people couldn't get into many schools, no matter how wealthy. Women couldn't have successful careers in the military, no matter how skilled. Etc., etc..
This isn’t the general condition of todays society.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 02/22/2017 :  14:40:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by The Rat

“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that.”

Yes, he really said that.

The man is an idiot.


I think you guys hate him because he is white.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25720 Posts

Posted - 02/23/2017 :  10:21:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by Dave W.

Good grief. Do you really not understand that at $8/hr, people have a hard time trying to afford the decent clothes, resumé prep and other small things which might give them an opportunity for a higher-paying job? Having an income that allows you to pay your bills, put gas in the car and keep the phone turned on is the bare minimum needed to pursue better opportunities. That's damn sure NOT equality of outcome.
I never said I was against $15/hr, only that is equals outcomes for people.
Then any minimum wage (even $0) must also be "equal outcomes," since "live a short, hungry, cold and diseased life" is an outcome.

I agree that people want to get off welfare. But they are also not stupid. If they can get more for being on welfare than at a job why would they get a job?
Because as generations of Americans have taught their children, having a job means having dignity.

There are plenty of cases, though, in which (for example) people have been offered a 25-cent raise and declined it because it would mean the end of, say, food stamps. An extra $10 a week in pay compared to $50 a week in food? Yeah, stuff the quarter. Bosses who offer such raises clearly don't understand the lives of their employees.

My concern for $15/hr is that less people will have jobs. Not that people will lose jobs, but there will be less new jobs available in the future as a result of the increased labor cost. Labor is like goods in that the more it costs the less demand there will be for it.
No, in most cases, the work needs to be done. Having higher labor costs doesn't reduce the amount of work to be done. Potholes don't fill themselves, for example.

People can join unions if they want, I don’t disagree that some of the unions have made life better for its members, my dad included. My beef is with the fact that someone has to pay money to an organization to get a job. This was one philosophy of Marxism and is anti free-markets.
If you can find a free market anywhere in the world, I'd be amazed. Practically speaking, "free market" is a phrase used by those who'd like to exploit their employees and customers. Because unlike the libertarian ideal, consumers do not act with enlightened self-interest, but instead make all sorts of mistakes in thinking that unregulated companies exploit.

If democrats really wanted equal opportunity wouldn't they be for eliminating inheritances? Doesn't a child of a rich family have more opportunity than a child from a poor family?
The problem is that the rich families have, for centuries, tried to ensure that those "other" kids cannot have the same opportunities, even if some other rich person paid their way.
So you agree with eliminating inheritances? Or no?
No. We need to eliminate systemic bias.

Brown-skinned people couldn't get into many schools, no matter how wealthy. Women couldn't have successful careers in the military, no matter how skilled. Etc., etc..
This isn’t the general condition of todays society.
The difference is one of scale, not of kind. Or are you one of those people who think that women aren't filling half of today's STEM jobs because they don't like math?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25720 Posts

Posted - 02/23/2017 :  10:25:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think you guys hate him because he is white.
No, he's orange.


- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1362 Posts

Posted - 02/23/2017 :  11:50:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think you guys hate him because he is white.

No, I hate him because he's a petulant, brattish, sub-literate, ill-informed, paranoid, solipsistic, crass, vain, thin-skinned, vindictive, litigious, ultra-narcissistic, na´ve, sociopathic, bullying, misogynistic, unstable, flimflamming, racist, vulgar, authoritarian, megalomaniacal, mammonistic, serial-lying demagogue who mistakes brashness for charisma and upholds loyalty as paramount over ethics.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 02/24/2017 :  11:21:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky


Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think you guys hate him because he is white.

No, I hate him because he's a petulant, brattish, sub-literate, ill-informed, paranoid, solipsistic, crass, vain, thin-skinned, vindictive, litigious, ultra-narcissistic, na´ve, sociopathic, bullying, misogynistic, unstable, flimflamming, racist, vulgar, authoritarian, megalomaniacal, mammonistic, serial-lying demagogue who mistakes brashness for charisma and upholds loyalty as paramount over ethics.

Huh, kinda what I thought of President Obama.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 02/24/2017 :  11:22:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think you guys hate him because he is white.
No, he's orange.


Good point.
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1362 Posts

Posted - 02/24/2017 :  11:55:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by ThorGoLucky


Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think you guys hate him because he is white.

No, I hate him because he's a petulant, brattish, sub-literate, ill-informed, paranoid, solipsistic, crass, vain, thin-skinned, vindictive, litigious, ultra-narcissistic, na´ve, sociopathic, bullying, misogynistic, unstable, flimflamming, racist, vulgar, authoritarian, megalomaniacal, mammonistic, serial-lying demagogue who mistakes brashness for charisma and upholds loyalty as paramount over ethics.
Huh, kinda what I thought of President Obama.

Troll.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 02/24/2017 :  14:51:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Then any minimum wage (even $0) must also be "equal outcomes," since "live a short, hungry, cold and diseased life" is an outcome.
Sure, there will be people that deserve to make $15/hr and people that don’t based on their skill level.

There are plenty of cases, though, in which (for example) people have been offered a 25-cent raise and declined it because it would mean the end of, say, food stamps. An extra $10 a week in pay compared to $50 a week in food? Yeah, stuff the quarter. Bosses who offer such raises clearly don't understand the lives of their employees.
Are they required to? Maybe the employee just needs to explain to the employer the situation. If they don’t care then the employee can either keep the job or get a different one.

No, in most cases, the work needs to be done. Having higher labor costs doesn't reduce the amount of work to be done. Potholes don't fill themselves, for example.
Maybe for governmental entities. In the private world businesses cannot hire people without turning a profit. If the labor cost is more than what people are willing to pay for their services/product they cannot create the job. If you are correct why not raise it to $50/hr?

If you can find a free market anywhere in the world, I'd be amazed. Practically speaking, "free market" is a phrase used by those who'd like to exploit their employees and customers. Because unlike the libertarian ideal, consumers do not act with enlightened self-interest, but instead make all sorts of mistakes in thinking that unregulated companies exploit.
Why is this a problem? Are you one of those that think companies are bad, consumers are good no matter what? I am not advocating no regulation or no minimum wage, it just needs to be fair to both sides. If a company plays by the rules how are they to blame if a consumer spends too much on something? Or buys something they don’t really want?

No. We need to eliminate systemic bias.
Prove to me systemic bias exists.

The difference is one of scale, not of kind. Or are you one of those people who think that women aren't filling half of today's STEM jobs because they don't like math?
I don’t know why STEM jobs are 75% men. I do know that women have the ability and opportunity to get those jobs. Is there a great multitude of women trying to get those jobs but are denied because they are women? Around 60% of college students are women and they can apply to any of the degree programs. Why are public school teachers 70% female? Do we have a systemic bias against men in this field? Why isn’t this a crisis?
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

83 Posts

Posted - 02/24/2017 :  14:54:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by ThorGoLucky


Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think you guys hate him because he is white.

No, I hate him because he's a petulant, brattish, sub-literate, ill-informed, paranoid, solipsistic, crass, vain, thin-skinned, vindictive, litigious, ultra-narcissistic, na´ve, sociopathic, bullying, misogynistic, unstable, flimflamming, racist, vulgar, authoritarian, megalomaniacal, mammonistic, serial-lying demagogue who mistakes brashness for charisma and upholds loyalty as paramount over ethics.
Huh, kinda what I thought of President Obama.

Troll.

Really? Why aren't you a troll for saying that about Trump? I do think those describe President Obama pretty well.
Go to Top of Page

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1362 Posts

Posted - 02/24/2017 :  18:04:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by ThorGoLucky

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by ThorGoLucky


Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I think you guys hate him because he is white.

No, I hate him because he's a petulant, brattish, sub-literate, ill-informed, paranoid, solipsistic, crass, vain, thin-skinned, vindictive, litigious, ultra-narcissistic, na´ve, sociopathic, bullying, misogynistic, unstable, flimflamming, racist, vulgar, authoritarian, megalomaniacal, mammonistic, serial-lying demagogue who mistakes brashness for charisma and upholds loyalty as paramount over ethics.
Huh, kinda what I thought of President Obama.

Troll.
Really? Why aren't you a troll for saying that about Trump? I do think those describe President Obama pretty well.

To assert that is clearly being a troll or spectacularly ignorant and ill-informed. Simply compare speeches and interviews between the two. One is educated, level-headed, articulate and professional, while the other has the temperament, depth and attention span of a playground bully high on drugs. Either way, I'm done with you. Bye.


Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 02/24/2017 18:07:26
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25720 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2017 :  14:46:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

I do think those describe President Obama pretty well.
You think a person can teach three classes per semester in constitutional law at the University of Chicago for twelve years and yet "sub-literate" describes him "pretty well?"

Good grief. I can see it now: the coming civil war is going to be between the anti-intellectuals and the rest of us. And the sub-literate haters will not understand at all the irony that the tactics they use or the guns they shoot were created by people who actually cracked a damned book.

Christian Hedonist doesn't even understand the Bible well enough to figure out that it's a tool to keep him submissive and pliable.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25720 Posts

Posted - 02/25/2017 :  16:19:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by Dave W.

Then any minimum wage (even $0) must also be "equal outcomes," since "live a short, hungry, cold and diseased life" is an outcome.
Sure, there will be people that deserve to make $15/hr and people that don’t based on their skill level.
So if "equal outcomes" upsets you so much, why are you advocating for the status quo?

Are they required to? Maybe the employee just needs to explain to the employer the situation. If they don’t care then the employee can either keep the job or get a different one.
Said like someone who's never had to worry about a job. There are factory towns - today, in the U.S. - where calling in sick means the next person on the waiting list gets to have your job. They don't have the luxury of being able to quit.

Maybe for governmental entities. In the private world businesses cannot hire people without turning a profit. If the labor cost is more than what people are willing to pay for their services/product they cannot create the job.
Say that about the basics. Government entities do not bake bread or milk cows. When the cost of bread or milk goes up, consumers grumble about it, but ultimately dig into their wallets and fork over the money.

Every complaint you're making was made in the 1930s, during the debates over the first national minimum wage law. That law, and the subsequent increases in the minimum wage, have not brought the economic ruin their detractors have constantly claimed they would.

If you are correct why not raise it to $50/hr?
In some places, it needs to be that much or more. A single parent of three in our Nation's Capitol needs at least $50/hr just to pay the normal costs of living.

If you can find a free market anywhere in the world, I'd be amazed. Practically speaking, "free market" is a phrase used by those who'd like to exploit their employees and customers. Because unlike the libertarian ideal, consumers do not act with enlightened self-interest, but instead make all sorts of mistakes in thinking that unregulated companies exploit.
Why is this a problem? Are you one of those that think companies are bad, consumers are good no matter what?
No. Am I really going to have to explain free-market assumptions to a free-market advocate? Shouldn't you understand the concepts before you try to defend them?

I am not advocating no regulation or no minimum wage...
Then you're not advocating free markets. Good!
...it just needs to be fair to both sides. If a company plays by the rules how are they to blame if a consumer spends too much on something? Or buys something they don’t really want?
Who says they are? I'm talking about fraud and the like. Without the rules (a free market), companies won't have to "play by the rules."

No. We need to eliminate systemic bias.
Prove to me systemic bias exists.
Okay: you think that some people are "deserving" of less money than they require to live. I'm sure that idea was taught to you. It didn't pop into your head from nothing.

Or, how many studies do you need to "prove" to you that resumes with female names are routinely considered less employable than resumes given male names despite everything else on the resumes being exactly the same?

Or, how many reports do you require as "proof" that "stop-and-frisk" programs routinely stopped and frisked way more people of color than they did whites, despite whites being more likely to be carrying contraband?

Or just look at the Republicans' gerrymandering and voter-ID efforts. They've said, out loud, in public, that minorities are more likely to vote Democrat, and so they're doing everything they can to discourage minorities from voting, or just ensuring that minority votes don't count.

I don’t know why STEM jobs are 75% men. I do know that women have the ability and opportunity to get those jobs.
Really? How do you know that women have the opportunities to get those jobs? I'm guessing that you mean that they have the same opportunities as men do, but that's flat-out wrong. They might have the same opportunities to send in a resume, but that's because they cannot be prohibited from using the mail. Once those resumes hit desks, those opportunities seem to dry up.

Is there a great multitude of women trying to get those jobs but are denied because they are women?
Yes!

Around 60% of college students are women and they can apply to any of the degree programs.
"Can apply to," sure. "Can get the same degree of consideration," no.

Why are public school teachers 70% female? Do we have a systemic bias against men in this field? Why isn’t this a crisis?
Why are public school teachers paid so poorly for the jobs they have? There is a crisis, and it's due to a systemic bias against women. Good grief! Thousands of years of bias and outright subjugation haven't corrected themselves in the last few decades. Male children are still taught that some things are "women's work." It's quite easy to see that there are more male public school teachers in the more "liberal" states. Texas is only a little below average, I'd give the state a D+. The real losers are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.

But what's really key here is that systemic bias against women hurts men, too. There might have been a fantastic male teacher out there who was thrust by family and peers into, say, mining or forestry or ranching because those were good, "manly" jobs. Instead of thriving and going on to become leaders of their fields, the students he might have had were instead taught by someone bitter and jaded, who was only in teaching for the paycheck, because despite having a masters in fluid dynamics, idiotic lab directors saw "Jane" on the resume and chucked it in the trash.

There are a gazillion people out there who wound up in a public school job because they couldn't find work in their preferred field, so they "settled" and got themselves a teaching certificate. Some percentage of them go to work every day and simply go through the motions, without the passion needed for educating. They are, through no fault of their own really, dragging down the potential of the kids in this country.

So before you ever think about complaining about possible systemic bias against men again, realize that systemic bias against anyone hurts everyone. Not just sexual or racist bias, but classist bias, religious bias and a host of other biases based on characteristics that have nothing to do with job performance.

Oh, and just because bias has lessened in recent history doesn't mean the bias has vanished altogether. There's still a lot of work to be done.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 19 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.41 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000