ActRaiserTheReturned said
After having a lover's spat with Turtle in the Suicide thread, I just knew I had to see the Doctor after our make out session. Now that I'm back on Spam, I have to tell him the bad news. I'm pregnant.
mdk said
In a static economy that's a problem. In the states though, that's just more incentive for new companies to move in and make a better buck. Heck, we practically committed genocide over gold in the black hills, imagine what we'll do for Netflix in Wyoming..... ultimately what happens here is companies accounting for high bandwidth transfers are going to be accountable in *more* equitable amounts for the traffic they generate. The FCC has been falsely propping up Netflix, by preventing TimeWarner from charging them a fair rate. It's a market inefficiency. Removing these is almost always beneficial in the long run, though I can't say I'm excited for my UltraHD streaming account to get a price boost. Frankly, 'Net Neutrality' was probably complicit in the extinction of Blockbuster -- the corporations do frequently lose, after all.
Dervish said
I have it on good authority that when that happens, you can all combine into a single Megazord.
So Boerd said
Wait wait wait, so you think there will be enough who will offer to work for less that the whole labor force is screwed? It is my body. If I can kill myself, why can't I work for too little?
Magic Magnum said
In a perfect world? There isn't if it is willing.The issue is that in the real world such a thing is way to open to abuse (even if say we see this kind of practice a decent amount, example: teenage babysitters). Like for example sweat shops, and then there's also the matter of it's almost impossible to support one self for 3 dollars an hour. Back when it was legal to pay this much people would pay this little all the time and this was common enough and/or jobs were so hard to get at the time that people were forced to work their butts off for next to nothing because it was that or die.I'm sure someone else will come in and say this far better than me (with far more info with it to boot), but in a nutshell it's something such a simple job for a few hours for extra spending cash it should be fine as long as the conditions are actually humane. But if it's a job that's meant to be lived off of, then the person is quite simply not going to survive with such low an income and if they do, they just barely get by and leave nothing for their kids if they have any.
ActRaiserTheReturned said
*I'm talking to Turt here*, Would Turtle like to ask a female victim of assault her Doctor's results of the pap smear.
So Boerd said
When an argument is based on immaterial and unfalsifiable premises, I can happily call it settled when all parties are free of contradiction and have thoroughly made their case, however Jorick and Turt, while my mother chose to have me, I did not choose to have the most potent emotional bond with her. The boyfriend entered knowing the risks, I was given no choice. Now if we ever say, debate minimum wage, I have ample quotes from many prominent liberals on the guild making a strenuous case for its repeal.
FYI, "You appear to be saying X" is Turt speech for "You are not saying X, but I want you to so I can argue against a strawman"
Gwazi said
I'd like to highlight that stuff like that do not have a 0% probability.
Very little? Yes, low enough I would not take Act's story here and go around referencing it as if it's fact. I'd need hard proof before I do that.
But when simply for the sake of a a discussion, one which will not have any impact outside of the mindsets of those taking part I'm willing to act Act's word for it.
Plus regardless of if the stories were true or not I was willing to address Act's argument and treat it on it's merits, not the history/emotional responses that would accompany it.
As long as the participants are able to keep such emotional bias outside of the arguments and reasoning the harm should be minimal.
Additionally, I'd like to highlight this is the Internet. A community full of people who stay anonymous. and especially on forums are looking for community's to accept them and have a new identity in cause their real life is either hard or won't accept them and on top of that people tend to be more open about bad experiences online than in person. So please note that when online you are both more likely to run into people who have bad experiences than you are in real life and they are also more likely to talk about them.
Now, listening to my own words about separating bias/emotion. I would personally rate the story was rather unbelievable/unlikely. On top of that I would not defend it with an argument such as "You can't disprove it!", that is a huge logical fallacy. But there's nothing gained in trying to tear the claim apart/disprove it assuming it is fake, if anything Act risks having the arguments made have less weight if Act chooses to hide behind them too often for the argument being made. Though I've already said that assuming it is true I hold a strong respect for Act, and I assume it goes without saying that if said story is false my view/opinion of Act would drop drastically. But like said, there's nothing to be gained to trying to tear it apart without knowing 100% for sure that's the case.