Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Alpha1

  1. All of Europe is more or less socialist, and somehow middle class isn't dying in (especially Western) Europe.


    Austerity Europe!?



    I also believe that local solutions to poverty problems are best, not centralized solutions made by people who have no real connection to my community.


    Besides the nonsense of fifty different solutions for everything, states are revenue constrained. Taxes by the US federal government, however, are obsolete for revenue purposes. In 1946, the chairman of the Fed Reserve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, wrote this:


    "...with an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."


    Why not use this power? The federal government has monopoly power on its own nonconvertible and free-floating currency. With government spending not revenue constrained, the first function of taxation is to regulate the value of the currency, but there are other functions, too.


    True enough. I wholeheartedly agree. Now explain to me why the government should force me to do that.


    For a similar reason that is used to justify not paying a minimum wage (i.e. they’ll still do the job). Some jobs have enormous potential because of how scalable it is (finance, law, or management, for example). And these are not professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution. Income is arbitrary. In practice, a worker’s productivity is not an objective quantity that is plainly seen, and the relative power of different social groups often plays a role in which workers get what. The diversity of different wage distributions across nations at different times can’t be explained by theory of marginal productivity. It’s quite clear, too, with the rise of the “supermanagers”. Their compensation varies significantly among countries. What evidence is there that US executives contribute a greater marginal product than French, German, or Japanese executives? Even if this was conceded, it’s quite obvious that you could make them toil away for significantly smaller compensation packages without offsetting the marginal product. But the compensation of the supermanagers isn’t even the most significant issue. What’s more of an issue is the immense inequality of gains on capital.


    user posted image


    ^ France As economic growth lags behind gains in capital, we’ll see inheritance as a proportion of national income increase.


    It’s always amusing how people always focus on the people at the bottom. I can list jobs that garner significantly more benefits, yet had they paid the same as minimum wage, the people still would have wanted it (e.g. school librarian vs. a Walmart or fast food position). The problem with this is that there are barriers of entry. You need a masters degree in library science, yet even a high school graduate could do that work. The supply of these skills depends on the state of the educational system (look at inner-city), how many people have access to different tracks (more than 80,000 qualified nursing applicants get denied a seat each year), the standards set (i.e. is it excessive?), and other factors.


    So what theory do you have that it’s all just and fair? In the public sector, it’s obvious there are problems with marginal productivity, but it is also clear in the private sector.


    That's determined by the market. There is no way around the fact that a higher minimum wage can never be economically productive. If set below equilibrium, it will do nothing. If set above equilibrium, it will cause a surplus of laborers, leading to unemployment.


    There’s a lot of evidence that increasing the minimum wage would help a lot of people out while having a small effect on the amount of jobs. We know the amount of jobs available is determined by macroeconomic policy and the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, so you can offset the job losses with good policy. Austerity and trickle-down aren't solutions.


    What’s your evidence that it isn’t economically productive? Why would companies lobby for food stamps? Capitalism runs on sales. The food stamp program has a high multiplier effect. Austerity shrinks the economy.


    Additionally, there’s a term called sticky wages or downward nominal wage rigidity. The Fed Reserve Bank of SF has a nice essay on it.




    Despite a severe recession and modest recovery, real wage growth has stayed relatively solid. A key reason seems to be downward nominal wage rigidities, that is, the tendency of employers to avoid cutting the dollar value of wages. This phenomenon means that, in nominal terms, wages tend not to adjust downward when economic conditions are poor. With inflation relatively low in recent years, these rigidities have limited reductions in the real wages of a large fraction of U.S. workers.


    The inability or unwillingness of employers to reduce nominal pay is known as downward wage rigidity. When economic conditions are poor, this rigidity can disrupt normal labor market functioning, especially in a low-inflation environment.”


    Right now it’s a problem in Europe. The Germans and the ECB are asking countries like Spain to get significant falls in nominal wages (to become competitive), which is difficult to achieve. The US has a flexible labor market, yet it ain’t falling. The strategy then is basically for debtor nations to achieve relative deflation through high unemployment.


    If you want the market equilibrium wage to be a "livable wage," the key is to stop causing inflation and unemployment by ridiculous regulation that is economically detrimental and logically backwards.


    Inflation was just 1.5% in 2013. And that “inflation” would be lower than 1% had it not been for a foreign monopolist playing around with the price of oil.




    Even with all the Fed’s horses and all the Fed’s men to reflate the economy, inflation hasn’t appeared. What was needed was sound fiscal policy, but the Republicans didn’t want that. They’re still stuck on stupid thinking that limiting spending means growth or that we’re just around the corner from defaulting.


    What regulations specifically? We still operate as if we’re under a gold standard, so we weren’t able to keep up with the credit structure that was created by what they call shadow banking (which basically isn’t regulated). They basically let the automatic stabilizers do the whole thing the way down.



    Raising the minimum wage will inevitably lead to an increased reliance on technology to replace the worker (a true Marxist nightmare).


    What's the point of work then? Shouldn't we strive to increase productivity? Who wants to spend their days as a bagger at a grocery store? Lower the minimum wage enough or get rid of it altogether, and we could have an army of mannequins!


    The U.S. GDP is above $13.5 trillion, which is bit higher than what it was before the financial crisis. The issue is that we’re producing the same amount of goods and services as before with over 7 million fewer workers. That’s a lot less workers than what a modest increase of the minimum wage would result in, so that point is moot.


    Look at this chart

    Real GDP and Labor


    It is real GDP divided by civilian labor force. Labor force participation is lowest since 1978, yet our economic output has never been higher. Fewer and fewer people are participating in the economy. Forbes had this news article title recently, "Phew, The Robots Are Only Going To Take 45 Percent Of All The Jobs" What do you do about it? Let them croak in the streets? Go with no medical care? No electricity, transportation, heat, etc.?


    Why not? I'm not saying I disagree, but you're making value judgments, not economic judgments. Why should people not have to work multiple jobs? What standard says that such a thing is "wrong," or even undesirable?


    "Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations


    Why would you want a large portion of the population miserable? Societies with more equal distribution of incomes have better health, fewer social problems, and are more cohesive than ones where the gap between the rich and poor is greater. The average well-being isn’t dependent on national income. It’s the differences of incomes between the people.


    Income Mobility


    Those, combined with other New Deal programs, arguably prolonged the depression, and at the least did nothing to really help.


    The output gap was so big compared to the stimulus. At the bottom of the wiki article, it gives sources saying that taxes and a cut in spending occurred before the 1938 setback.




    Oddly, you pointed out WWII spending. Why would it be different?


    The majority of people working minimum wage jobs are not at or below the poverty line, because the majority (85%) of minimum wage earners are not the sole income source in their family.


    That argument can be used to support taxing wealthier people more.



    “The trend has a dark side, says Dalton Conley, social sciences dean at New York University. "High-income women marrying high-income men is one of the drivers of inequality," he says. "It affects the distribution of income between families." He notes that among college-educated high-income couples, the divorce rate is getting lower, while unmarried low-income men and women tend to partner up and then uncouple more rapidly. "This leads to family instability and a cycle of disadvantage," says Conley. Single parents often have trouble moving ahead in their careers, while low-earning parents have little income to save or invest. They fall further behind, while the families with two college-educated earners pull ever more ahead.”


    Family Earnings of Children


    Basically most people who earn minimum wage are young, in school, or a supplemental earner to a spouse/family member who earns better wages.


    A little more than half of U.S. wage earners reported less than $30,000 in 2013. If you make more than $15,000, you earn more than almost a third, and we’re seeing an increase in temp agencies as more employers seek “just-in-time” labor. They suck.


    Saying that he should "pay more" is cheap rhetoric when paying more means basically nothing to him.


    Funny because one of the justifications for redistribution policies is diminishing marginal utility.


    Recognizing that farmers will not get paid as much as a doctor does not mean that we don't want farmers to exist. I have been a farmer. But each doctor's labor is worth more than each farmer's labor because of field entry barriers and educational requirements.


    It depends on the farmer. Some get over $100,000 in farm welfare subsidies each year. That doesn’t include crop insurance or CRP.


    user posted image


    Basically - because you will, being a decent person - BUT - in today's me me mine all mine me society, where we are encouraged to be thoroughly selfish and ACQUIRE Things to keep the rich earning even more money by selling them (Thatcher did that to the UK mad.gif ) far too many people would refuse to do anything for anyone else.


    In economics, imports = user posted image, exports = mad.gif

  2. Still not really sure what analogy you're trying to draw. It seems a bit weak, in either case.


    You keep insisting that no one should see a problem because no one is “preventing” them from something, but there are plenty of examples where there are protections at the expense of others. Because many times, it’s seen as more beneficial. I’m using these examples (i.e. tenant protections, minimum wage, hiring, etc.) as rebuttals to your analogies about the boss not paying you out of work or whatever. You seem to be saying, “No one is mandating my boss pay me a vacation for not having the money due to not coming to work always (i.e. he never prevented me from going on a vacation), so obviously there was nothing wrong with the Hobby Lobby ruling”. Do you disagree with everything that’s similar to Hobby Lobby? Sounds like an Ayn Rand fantasy.


    Making economic transactions coerced rather than voluntary is absurd. They could have argued it under current SCOTUS precedent, yes, but current precedent regarding the commerce clause is laughable. It's been butchered and censorkip.gif***ized to the point that it means nothing close to what it was originally intended to regulate, which was COMMERCE (i.e. shipping and sales) across state lines. The idea that something could be regulated under the commerce clause just because it could be done in several different states would have been laughable to the framers.


    Obamacare is basically a klutzy way of simulating single payer system. Instead of collecting enough revenue to pay for it, it requires that those who can afford it buy the insurance directly and subsidizes those who can’t. In the end, the result is similar to the government collecting and providing full coverage. I don’t see the SC striking down Medicare at any point, and a SC ruling rolling back all of the case law would set back many and benefit a few. I think Ike said it best.


    user posted image


    I don't know enough about the medical science to argue this one way or the other, but that is a point of debate, is it not? If it weren't, there would be no reason for people to be opposed to plan b any more than they are opposed to other forms of BC.


    They would still oppose it. Republicans hate the idea of easy access to birth control even though they know women have the option to get an abortion if they do get pregnant. People commonly don’t admit to facts, so it isn’t surprising.


    The medical establishment disagrees with them. Plan B works by preventing/delaying ovulation.


    although pollutants are different than wage laws and healthcare laws (it's not "coercive" in the same sense to punish someone for actual harm).


    How is someone dying prematurely from fossil fuel plants different than the issues that result from unintended pregnancies? And it would be worse under your ideal government because you don’t agree with Roe v. Wade.


    What compelling gov't interest is there to guarantee free access to healthcare?? How do you even define a "compelling government interest"? The Supreme Court never did, but they still use it as a legal test. Funny how that works.




    “WASHINGTON Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage.

    The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.

    When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday. […[“


    The government taking my money by force and using it for bad things is not the same thing as the government forcing me to use the money in my possession for bad things.


    First of all, why should the Green family trump all of their employees? Had the focus been the First Amendment instead of a statutory case, you can easily see this running up against the Establishment Clause.


    Hobby Lobby’s “payment” is just a component of their employees’ total compensation package, which changes with supply and demand. And boohoo, the Green family net worth is over $5 billion from all of the cheap labor in China.


    By the way, conservatives hate tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood even when it’s not allocated to abortions (by law, it can’t). They argue that it goes into a pool of money, and then inevitably winds up paying for an abortion at some point.


    I would beg to differ about whether or not we "know" anything of the sort, but that's a discussion fit for another discussion board.


    We’ll take it to the capitalism thread then. ; )


  3. I'm really not sure what the first part of your post has to do with anything, so I'll start with this. I realize that. I think the law is stupid and inane and coercive and illogical. The fact that something is the law doesn't change its nature of being stupid.


    For the first part, is the nanny being prevented from finding shelter elsewhere if there was no eviction process? No, but it’s disingenuous. Same here. Conservatives keep saying there’s cheap BC at the store, or they cover other contraceptives in the plan, but the options are not the same as the effective IUD, which has high upfront costs that turn many women away from it.


    What was illogical about the law? They could have easily argued the Commerce Clause applies to ACA, but Roberts decided to steer to Congress’s ability to tax. Scalia himself maintained that the federal ban on marijuana is constitutional under the Commerce Clause even in states that approved its medicinal use, so why would progressives miss the opportunity to expand on what the conservative justices have already utilized when it was convenient for them? Now, I think the employer-based system is flawed, but there was little chance of changing this.


    But at the least, if one believes that life begins at conception, thinks like plan B and IUDs cause post-conception termination, which would be the ending of a life.


    They don’t. Here’s a pdf on Plan B from the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics (FIGO). Ella apparently doesn’t have that problem either.




    The copper IUD is the only one I’ve seen that possibly prevents implantation, but no one uses it as emergency contraceptive, so the risk would be negligible in comparison to the unplanned pregnancies it could prevent.


    I'm acting as if business managers should be able to choose what healthcare plans they want to offer as part of their incentives package and shouldn't be coerced into buying anything, much less things they morally object to.


    They’re already “coerced” in plenty of ways e.g. minimum wage, regulations on pollutants, hiring, etc. In this case, there is a compelling government interest to guarantee those contraceptive options, and I don’t see how the company owners’ “burden” is much different than someone paying taxes and having it allocated in stuff they don’t agree. No one would go, “Woe is me, I’m so responsible for this”.


    I'm also acting like the act of not buying something is fundamentally different than the act of preventing someone from getting that same thing. To say Hobby Lobby is "preventing" or "keeping" their employees from accessing anything is an outright lie.


    The results are what matters. If there’s no minimum wage, for example, it doesn’t “prevent” people from getting a higher paying job, but we know the minimum wage helps the poorest significantly, and reduces the need for government programs (which end up costing money for support staff).



  4. Is my boss preventing me from eating because he doesn't give me free food on lunch break? Is my boss preventing me from going on vacation because he doesn't pay me when I don't come to work, and I can't afford a vacation this year? Explain to me how this is different.


    Hey phil XD




    California Couple's Live-in Nanny Stops Working, Refuses To Leave


    “But when they attempted to get her to sign a letter articulating the agreement, she refused to sign it.

    “When I asked her why she wouldn’t sign the letter she said ‘It’s not legal,’ and slammed the door in my face,” Bracamonte said, according to ABC. “Once she said the word legal, I knew it wasn’t going to be fun."

    Police say they cannot remove Stretton from the Bracamonte’s home, and that they have to go through an eviction process.”


    The contraceptive part of the ACA was meant as a preventive health service to reduce the amount being spent in this country for unplanned pregnancies (babies, illness, complications etc.). It’s the law. Your analogies are invalid.


    Hobby Lobby covers all types of BC that could conceivably be used for generic health reasons and only refuses to cover those that are exclusively used to cause post-conception termination of a pregnancy.


    These morning after pills and IUDs aren’t abortifacients. What’s funny about the whole thing is that there’s no logic to opposing birth control and finding abortion wrong. Access to contraceptives (and the IUDs are rather effective) lessens the need for abortions and reduces the possibility of eggs being fertilized and failing to implant. Additionally, many of these people are fiscally conservative, so who do they think pays for their pregnancies and children?


    Who is being forced to do or not do ANYTHING by their ability to determine what they do and don't pay for??


    You act as if the managers of the companies have some significant burden while at the same time trivializing the issues that the employees face. The owners are not even a part of the decision if a woman decides to utilize contraceptives benefit in the health care plan.

  5. This Hobby Lobby case shows that, once a again, the Supreme Court is one of the most unbiased courts we have, which is a good thing. Things like DOMA are being removed. but Hobby Lobby just win this case, as an example.


    There are five conservative justices and four liberal justices. On DOMA, Kennedy is more open (with some reservations) to gay marriage, so that’s why it swung that way.


    I can understand why the ruling went the way it did. It was 5-4, so it wasn't like it was a clear-cut decision.


    The ruling went the way it did because of the above. Surprise, surprise.


    The way people are talking about this, you'd think Hobby Lobby is trying to forbid their employees from purchasing birth control. This sort of statement is absolutely absurd.


    Besides the whole “corporations are religious people”, they arbitrarily narrowed it to only contraceptives because they don’t want to open this up to complaints from other religious beliefs that they don’t agree with (e.g. vaccination or blood transfusion would be off-base). The court also is ruling this based on “sincerely held” beliefs, not if it’s actually correct. They didn’t challenge Hobby Lobby’s claim that these IUD’s and morning-after pills are killing fertilized eggs. Moreover, many fertilized eggs spontaneously abort, so that alone should be enough to dismiss these clowns.


    Once again, Hobby Lobby pays for SIXTEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF BIRTH CONTROL as part of their healthcare plans. They object to the ones that cause post-conception termination of pregnancies. If you work at Hobby Lobby and decide to terminate a pregnancy or purchase a morning after pill, no one is stopping you, they just aren't giving you the money to do it.


    Hobby Lobby was against counseling for those contraceptives. I don’t know how that would work in practice, but there’s also the fact that others are up to bat, and they don’t want any BC coverage.


    I'm still at a loss as to why this is even an issue. It's like saying "my boss won't buy me a company car, therefore he has invaded my garage and is trying to prevent me from owning a car."


    What if the boss doesn’t want to pay a fair wage? Would it be in the interest of the public to have a race to the bottom by getting rid of the minimum wage? We know the Walton business model is to pay as little as possible, and then let the government sort it all out...



  6. Lol. Not when websites like this are still up

    warning: racism, slurs, this is a FAMOUS white supremacist site


    It’s the internetz.




    warning: beastiality XD


    I'm tired of all of you framing racism as solely being against Black people when people of other races go through it too.


    Because blacks are doing far worse as a group, and there’s the history that goes behind it, which many argue is the culprit for why they lag behind in education, employment, etc. That’s why the focus is on them. There hasn’t even been that much discussion, since Shiny brought this to the thread. I mean, you could bring up what you think other groups face and see if others respond.


    You're essentially making out Black people as this loud angry minority which is a stereotype that they get thrown at in their faces so.....


    I’ve never painted them with such a generalization, and this criticism isn’t going to shut down the fact that arguments can be flawed, and it will be pointed out by someone. Moreover, we’ve been arguing with Shiny about this; she’s making the argument for them. One of the arguments commonly used is that blacks are being killed, and it’s insinuated that it’s our fault. The fact of the matter is that over ninety percent of all black homicide victims are killed by other blacks, and they share a disproportionate amount of homicides for their population size. It can be tiresome arguing over their grievances, which is why I decided just to move on for now instead of responding to Shiny’s newest posts.


    Anyways, I'm tired of this thread already and how everyone's angry about supposed reverse


    I’m not angry, which I find amusing because I've recently seen that you've made the same comment in another thread. XD


    racism when white power groups like the KKK, neo-nazis and white supremacist groups are making a comeback. Bye bye


    Come back to me when it looks like this again.



  7. I was NOT going to come into this thread but I am SUPER tired of the people here using dictionary definitions.

    For example, this is the definition of the word carrot as defined by the dictionary


    FYI, the courts even use urban dictionary. What do you expect? To just argue without backing it up? Yes, dictionaries can have varying descriptive definitions that aren’t necessarily applicable. Case in point, the YEC’s love to use the dictionary to say that evolution is “just a theory” and that it’s a "religion" in the same sense as Christianity and Islam are. But there’s little reason to be upset that people aren’t accepting a one-sided definition of a word that’s far from mainstream.


    You act like people ever cared when you could have literally shouted that at say a slaveowner in the 1800s and he wouldn't have given a damn, not clutch his chest and talk about what a righteous person he was.

    Actions are more important than words and I personally do not care about people who go on doing racist actions while saying that they aren't racist and the word is offensive to them.


    In society today, it’s unacceptable, so they’re going to be defensive. That’s obvious. Slaskia is saying that it gets thrown for anything perceived as negative towards blacks. If you thought Zimmerman was innocent, for example, you were a racist to some. If you thought there was only a trial because Martin was black, you were a racist.


  8. I'd say more women have degrees because there is no high paying entry level job for women like there is for men except for stripping and prostitution.


    During WWII, women proved that they could do "men's" work. There's always the military. If you stay for twenty years, you get a life time pension. They also start out at the top in income for their age group.


    Do you know why there are more women who get degrees? Because unless they are educated, they are passed over in favor of males for job opportunities. The pressure to get a career is high in females because otherwise they are expected to become stay-at-home moms. That has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with sexism.


    Well, there have been several explanations for it. For one, women have been doing better in school for decades (better habits, more studying). The APA has found they do better in all subjects at all ages around the world.


    Wouldn't males also have a drive? It's apparent in jobs like nursing where a significant portion of CRNA's are male. We know that the lower the family income, the greater the disparity between men and women attending college. And we know that the college educated tend to marry other college educated people. Higher incomes, less divorce, etc.


    How are they passed over? Women aren't going for top positions because they have made a choice that the alternatives were better than simply thinking CEO = power = happiness.


    Look at the recent Sterling case. He's paying black players millions because blacks do well at basketball. If you're a better candidate, it's likely you'll get picked because $$$. We also have equal opportunity employment.


    However, you could say the same for PoC. There is a push to gain degrees and get higher education simply because they need it in order to get sustainable jobs. White middle class men are favored in the job force even when they don't have high levels of education.


    If they have a similar history or a lack of, then yes, they probably wouldn't want to risk it. Similar to what companies are doing now for anyone that has been long-term unemployed. There is a problem with felonies for drug possession which hinders them. That should be dealt with obviously since that's a big obstacle.


    You're also bringing up other issues that have nothing to do with racism. Ableism, body type stigma, and poverty. There are all factors that have to be taken into consideration. You know what still makes white people privileged in these situations? Because compared to a PoC with the exact same issues, the white person will still be favored.


    Yes, but the point was that I find it ridiculous that people always throw around that "check your privilege, you're white/male" thing. There's much more about the individual than skin color or gender.


    Yes, and good thing too. That doesn't mean that this power still doesn't work against minorities, though.


    It isn't always good. The college graduation rates are abysmal as is, so it can be detrimental placing a black student who scores lower in the university when over 65 percent of them will fail to graduate. Many of the blacks who benefited were from middle and upper class backgrounds, while displacing poorer whites and Asians.


    History is incredibly significant in this discussion, and should not be ignored because we white people want to play the victim.


    But it's not being ignored. Racial prejudice against blacks in the US was widely accepted until the 1960s and has since become far less prevalent.


    In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958


    user posted image


    Thanks dear. I understand how difficult this can be. I've been called all sorts of horrible names just for trying to discuss this with people in my college, and it's frankly terrifying how some people react to this. I wish you well too! I will always listen to PoC about these things and fight for their right to be heard.


    Aww, I looked at the link. Shiny's not dumb.


    To many of these people, they're not going to realize you're making a distinction between negative acts based in race in general and systematic oppression based on race. Same with sexism, and most discriminatory -isms, really.


    Because what does the old white men in the 0.1% have to do with a black person beating a white person over his race? The 47% aren't the one's in power.


    In Japan it's different, because you ARE the minority there.


    What does it mean if there's no longer a majority? Here in CA, the Latinos have surpassed us.

  9. They don't get it. UGH I'M SO ANNOYED. And it seems like right now I'm the only one trying to educate them on what racism is.


    Racism is an individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a given race. That’s it. When does it change to allow for whites to be included?


    In the 1940’s, most people would have agreed that blacks should be separate on buses, and a very tiny portion in the South would have supported school integration. In the 1950’s many Americans wouldn’t have supported mixed marriages (see link below). There's even higher support if you exclude anyone above the age of 50. The attitudes towards blacks have changed drastically.




    White folks are in a place of power, and thus cannot be oppressed.


    And that “power” has been used to help minorities e.g. government hiring less qualified black applicants and the use of race in college admissions.


    Racism is a systematic oppression of a marginalized group.


    But their problems don’t all stem from white people. For example, does discrimination explain this below? Or the persistent gap in test scores that go back decades? Or how Asians do better?




    “Within each racial/ethnic group, women earned the majority of degrees at all levels in 2009–10. For example, among U.S. residents, Black females earned 68 percent of associate's degrees, 66 percent of bachelor's degrees, 71 percent of master's degrees, and 65 percent of all doctor's degrees awarded to Black students.”


    Another point is that people who dislike racism often hate stereotypes, but they love to claim that all whites are so privileged, even though whites with lower than average intelligence, personality/mental problems, and in poverty or having an unattractive appearance will not be. Here’s a study of just weight/height discrimination, for example. There's of course other differences between individuals.




    “Both institutional forms of weight/height discrimination (for example, in employment settings) and interpersonal mistreatment due to weight/height (for example, being called names) were common, and in some cases were even more prevalent than discrimination due to gender and race.”


  10. This only motivates me more to move out of the US or into another state entirely that allows abortion smoothly. I'm not sure which is the best state for that though..


    It's too bad we weren't able to take over our neighbors.

  11. If I'm not struggling with the weight and I'm taller/possibly weigh more than him, what reasons do you think he has for saying I'm unsuitable for the job? Just curious as I would like opinions.


    It sounds like he didn't want you to get hurt, not that you were performing badly. But yeah, he's only saying it because you're a female. It's good that he doesn't seem antagonistic, and your boss thinks you're doing awesome.

  12. I am pretty sure, that most of the fervent pro-choice people here would object to being given information on,how to raise kids//what they'd be in for if they don't abort. No matter how its given. Because clearly, thats "emotional abuse" already. Hence why I called it pro-abortion, not pro-choice, a few pages back.



    Also, putting it as just "are you sure?"-counselling is what was implied by OTHERS. Noone ever asked me how I'd envision such a thing, and even if,they did, it probably would get invalidated by having no uterus.



    Its literally impossible in this thread to voice an opinion, without getting run over at least five times.


    So what would they be told?




    "Arguably the most prominent chapter in the book is entitled, Victim of a Crime? Thank a Single Mother. In this chapter, Coulter argues that liberals passionately deify single mothers as though they are victims of happenstance who plod through their tough life experiences, when in reality, as she sees it, they are victimizers of the young children they bring into the world with the worst possible life chances by their engaging in willy-nilly and deviant sexual behaviors. She is also critical of the decision of single mothers not to give up their children for adoption when research shows that adopted children fare markedly better than non-adopted children of single mothers."



    user posted image

  13. again, assumptions. all counselling must be emotional manipulation and driven by the will to force birth.


    except - not. I'll go search the brains in the trashcan now, thank you.


    So what do you want? Those "crisis pregnancy centers", which just guilt and coerce women to go through with the pregnancy? From what you've said previously, it sounds like it's out of bitterness. Their reasons are fine. It's none of their business to try to get them to reconsider. The sad part is that many of these people who want them to go through with it also won't hesitate to call for taking away all the stuff that helps them like HUD, SNAP, EITC, etc.


  14. Most if the aeguments used could be continued on for eugenics, killing old and disabled people,

    or generally everything thats not considered a "person" under varyung, quite personal, and biased definitions.


    From ABC/Washington Post poll:


    “Seventy-nine percent of “very” conservatives oppose abortion in all or most cases, while 80 percent of liberals support it (partly, in this case, because nearly three in 10 liberals profess no religion).”


    You don’t have to worry about the pro-choice people. They want safety nets. The pro-life people are more likely to embrace austerity.


    Its actually the pro-choice people that put a lot more emphasis on being "thinking", "sentient", "viable", while for pro-life it usually is enough to be just, you know, alive. Might be a bad/miserable life, but at least its life.


    No, for the pro-life, you must not be one of the 47%.


  15. I would bother with more serious replies if you didn't cherry pick my posts to make fallacious points.


    There's no reason for me to comment on ALL the other stuff when none of them were a reply to me, nor are they necessarily related to what I was responding to. You can leave it as is. I don’t care. Saying I made fallacious points without elaborating is pointless.

    Plus, my post was mainly about your stats, which were just taken from feminists sites. That is no better than someone getting something from an MRA site. It's much better just looking the stuff up than expecting a biased blogger to tell you.


  16. That doesn't necessarily mean all those rapists are female, though.  Male/male rape happens, as does female/female rape.  It is entirely possible that a male was "made to penetrate" another male.


    Certainly, some of those rapes are likely to be female-on-male rape.  However, some of them are also likely to be male-on-male rape.

    Like 80% of them were. I'll look for it later. i don't think it was in that link I posted.

  17. Those things are seen as girly, and if you're "girly" then that makes you less of a man somehow, as if it's a bad thing.


    Lacking assertiveness/confidence isn’t good. I know watching MLP doesn’t necessarily mean that, but the assumption made by others is that they’re watching it because they haven’t grown up.


    It's like this post I've seen a few times:

    Basically, the worst thing you can call somebody is a girl. (Various names for female private parts being considered worse than being called a "dick", the use of the b-word, etc.)


    Being called a censorkip.gif* or a girl is less likely to hurt someone than being called a censorkip.gif**, manchild, loser, creep, etc. Those are more likely to be directed to someone who isn’ t well-adjusted, and they imply something worse.


    What do you guys think of people who say things like "what if the woman regrets it and changes her mind to say it was rape?”


    It’s a legitimate question. If they think it happens very often, then correct them. I know a lot of people will just dismiss it and call them a victim blamer, rape apologist, etc. Kind of like the responses Dr. Phil got when he asked a question about sex with a drunk woman.


    False rape accusations occur less than 1% of the time.


    Incorrect. The source you got that from was only counting accusations that were prosecuted. With all the different terminology and methodology, the numbers have been all over the place.




    “As recent incisive reviews have highlighted, false allegations have been found to represent 1.5 per cent of rape cases, 90 per cent of rape cases and virtually every other figure in between (Rumney 2006; Lisak et al. 2010). Explaining these vastly divergent research findings is relatively straightforward. Prevalence is contingent on what precisely is being counted, and who is doing the counting (Greer 1999; Turvey 2004; Rumney 2006; Lisak et al. 2010).”


    “Rather, the point is this: while researchers’, commentators’ and, indeed, readers’ own personal politics and theoretical persuasions may lead them to prefer some (usually the lower) estimates of the prevalence of false allegations over others, there is currently no empirical justification for the wholesale dismissal of front-line criminal justice professionals’ reports of their frequency. First, because, given the mixed bag of research findings, the only thing we know with any certainty about the prevalence of false allegations of rape is that we do not know how prevalent they are. And, second, because there has been little, if any, attempt by researchers to date to ensure that they understand—or, if they do understand, to accurately reflect in their research reports—what their interview respondents perceive as constituting a false allegation.”


    I think it is largely a statement that is trying to make awareness of rape culture look ridiculous in order to take credibility away.


    More porn user posted image


    Legalizing Pornography: Lower Sex Crime Rates? Study Carried out in Czech Republic Shows Results Similar to Those in Japan and Denmark


    I'm not so bothered when we tend to frame rapists as male or when we talk mainly about rapists as male because 99% of rapists are male.


    I’m not so sure about that.




    “Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives.”


    This is what gets reported a lot. What doesn’t get reported is another category labeled “made to penetrate”.


    “4.8% of men reported they were made to penetrate someone else at some time in their lives.”



  18. Girls get toys that prepare them for a life of their appearance being their most important asset and boys get toys that evolve their interests and individuality.




    user posted image


    The problem with talking about "rape culture" in ANY country is that the *majority* of rapes aren't even reported.


    And nobody talks about this.





    “Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.”


    I know women all over the world who "expect" to be treated as lesser beings


    Like this? XD



    Also, I want to chime back on shaming and rape culture: That's a US problem.


    How did you figure that? Rape stat comparisons are hard to do, and many people just like to point to the stats without considering demographics.


    user posted image


    I have just been talking to a teacher who has regular contact with many girls and boys aged between 16 and 20. They all agree that the culture where men see themselves as superior is getting steadily worse (after it HAD been improving somewhat over several years) - this, they all agree, has been very much worse over the last 10 years.


    Any evidence for it besides observation? This reminds me of how many people like to claim that people were more moral and upright decades ago.




    “The survey found that around three-quarters of men and women believe that the growing presence of women in the workplace has been very or somewhat positive for American society and the economy.”


    There was a more recent one that I believe said 80%, but I can’t seem to find it.


    “Americans are becoming more accepting of single mothers as well. In a survey conducted April 25-28, Pew found that 64 percent of Americans said the growing number of children born to unmarried mothers is a “big problem,” down from 71 percent in 2007.”


    Women STILL earn less for the same amount of work


    No they don’t.


    user posted image


    This graph doesn’t account for the factors for the gap, so it’s even smaller than what the Pew graph states.


    From Pew:


    “There has been much scholarly research about the underlying causes of the gender wage gap. Most, but not all of the wage gap can be explained by certain measurable factors such as educational attainment, occupational segregation and differences in the number of hours worked (even among full-time workers).”


    Tell me - how can you who keep saying there's no discrimination try and say the world is not slanted against women ?




    Apr. 2, 2009 — A couple's sexual orientation determines whether or not they prefer to adopt a boy or a girl. Gay men are more likely to have a gender preference for their adopted child whereas heterosexual men are the least likely. What's more, couples in heterosexual relationships are more likely to prefer girls than people in same-gender relationships, according to Dr. Abbie Goldberg from Clark University in the US.




    Now, childless couples prefer to adopt girls




    “The second pattern shown was the gender preference. "A girl has a higher—by slightly more than one-third—chance of attracting the attention of potential adoptive parents than a boy," says Felli.”


    “These preferences come with what is essentially a price tag, the researchers note. The data showed that parents are willing to pay an average of $16,000 more in finalization costs for a girl as opposed to a boy, says Yariv”


  19. Consenting to sex is not consenting to bearing a child, either. And someone who really feels they cannot have an abortion has as much right NOT to have one as someone who believes in that choice has to go that route.


    Their beliefs shouldn't override the fact that she has an option, and he doesn't. You can say, "If you play, you pay" like so many people do, but it's less equitable that way.


    Then *obviously*, consenting to sex is not consenting to 9 months of sickness, body changes, possible complications and death, just because of pregnancy.


    I didn't say women shouldn't be able to have an abortion, so I don't know what you're trying to point out to me.


  20. Paying some money for a child doesn't control someone's bodily autonomy. It doesn't put them at risk for the same things a pregnancy does (gestational diabetes, postpartum PTSD, etc.) - things that can be lifelong. It really can't be compared.


    The state forcing child support can lead to suicide.


    (The man will also not end up with the results of an episiotomy, the damaged muscle system, the stress incontinence later in life, the change in body shape, never mind the actual pregnancy


    Fuzz XD


    user posted image


    No. He is equally responsible; he had sex too. The baby is as much his as hers, if carried to term. He has no right to force her to have an abortion. WE come back to - it is her body. (I would have some small degree of sympathy there actually, if she flatly refused a termination after he had offered to meet all the expenses, but still.... He did not have to impregnate her.


    Uh, why should he have to pay? She can do the responsible thing and abort the stupid baby. Consenting to sex is not consenting to years of payments.


  21. So what do you guys think about mandatory child support? I'm just curious. Because in many cases even if the guy doesn't want the child he still ends up having to pay money for it for 18 years, but if it were the other way around (man wants baby, woman doesn't) then he wouldn't have any say in if she gets an abortion or not.

    There's also this to consider:




    "Approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 million) of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control"


    ******* be crazy. XD


    Though, if he doesn't pay, then the taxpayers are stuck with it.



  22. That mentality is disgusting and I hope you realize that you're advocating the murder of my parents.


    Keynes, not me! XD I don’t know why you think that should have been taken literally, though. What I really mean about going after rent-seekers (in this case, landlords) is that the unimproved value of land is a proper place to levy taxes.


    "Both ground- rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations


    “Ground-rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent which can be got for the use of his ground.” – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations


    "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations


    It’s hard to challenge FIRE (the finance, insurance, and real estate interests).


    “The most comfortable, but also the most unproductive way for a capitalist to increase his fortune, is to put all monies in sites and await that point in time when a society, hungering for land, has to pay his price.” – Andrew Carnegie


    Here’s an example today:


    "While billions of dollars of oil money is flowing freely to North Dakota, investment in new real estate has not followed. With demand far outpacing supply, rents and land prices are sky-high, and residents have few retail options."


    "Take now... some hard-headed business man, who has no theories, but knows how to make money. Say to him: "Here is a little village; in ten years it will be a great city-in ten years the railroad will have taken the place of the stage coach, the electric light of the candle; it will abound with all the machinery and improvements that so enormously multiply the effective power of labor. Will in ten years, interest be any higher?" He will tell you, "No!" Will the wages of the common labor be any higher...?" He will tell you, "No the wages of common labor will not be any higher..." "What, then, will be higher?" "Rent, the value of land. Go, get yourself a piece of ground, and hold possession." And if, under such circumstances, you take his advice, you need do nothing more. You may sit down and smoke your pipe; you may lie around like the lazzaroni of Naples or the leperos of Mexico; you may go up in a balloon or down a hole in the ground; and without doing one stroke of work, without adding one iota of wealth to the community, in ten years you will be rich! In the new city you may have a luxurious mansion, but among its public buildings will be an almshouse." – Henry George, Progress and Poverty