Total posts: 4,276
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
We just had a serious bout of inflation and the federal minimum wage was NOT a factor. The experts do not disagree with that.
"A significant majority of responding economists oppose raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour...a majority (58%) of economists believe raising the federal minimum wage to $15 will contribute to inflation following the pandemic."
rainfall drives inflation
I'm noticing a suspicious lack of experts.
Created:
Bullshit.
A rather bold claim to make when the experts are against you.
Do high CEO salaries drive inflation? What are economists saying about that? What are your concerns about that?
Again, irrelevant to whether an increase in the minimum wage increases inflation.
Why do they oppose Biden’s plan? Do you know?
It says in the article, but the why wasn't part of the claim I was making.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Because it doesn’t fix our broken education system which is tuition is too high.
Perhaps, but that's still irrelevant to what I said, which is that the majority of economists oppose Biden's plan.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I’ll repeat that both those things are already happening. So obviously they are independent of the federal minimum wage.
A number of different factors drive inflation, including an increase in the minimum wage.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
All of that is largely irrelevant to what I said, which is that the majority of economists oppose Biden's plan.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The expert consensus is that both of those things would happen as a result of an increased minimum wage.That’s not true, and no where in your citation does it say that.
I'll repeat the text you cited from my source literally two posts ago:
- Inflation: A majority (58%) of economists believe raising the federal minimum wage to $15 will contribute to inflation following the pandemic.
- Automation: Eighty-six percent believe a $15 minimum wage will cause increased automation to replace workers’ tasks.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That’s laughable.
I would not dismiss an expert consensus as "laughable."
It’s already happening but if you raise the minimum wage then it will really happen. Lol
I don't know why you insist on strawmanning what I said. Inflation can still increase, even if it is already high.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
"Academic economists, think tanks and universities, members of previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, are in almost universal harmony on the Biden student loan forgiveness plan. They think that it is a bad idea."
I don't think my characterization of the source was inaccurate.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What's your standard for recognizing an economic reality? Both parties are identifying problems with the economy all the time, especially if the other side is in office.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
these American economists are affiliated with Germany
This seems like an example of the genetic fallacy, or maybe just racism, but I'm mostly just confused about what you think this has to do with the validity of their economic expertise.
Both these things are already happening without a $15 federal minimum wage!
That does not negate the likelihood that a $15 min wage will make inflation worse or that it will lead to increased automation. The expert consensus is that both of those things would happen as a result of an increased minimum wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Of course the question is now where to cut defense spending. That's going to come with significant repercussions. It may be better to first fix the overpricing issue with military equipment, though I confess I don't have a great long-term solution to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
In all fairness, I can see parts of your plan working in a limited number of cases. I'm just hesitant to say it will be better than the current system (though it's an admittedly low bar).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
agencies spend what they are budgeted for.
This doesn't work for something like Build Back Better or a high-speed rail plan, where implementing 25% of it will result in something that doesn't serve its intended purpose or breaks down. A lot of plans involve spending money for a particular project, and meeting halfway is infeasible in a lot of cases.
deciding how to create the quiz
I just don't see how designing the quiz would be more feasible than what we have now. Both are susceptible to human error and disagreements. You say that nothing on the quiz is radical, but Congress has to agree on what that means. It could easily create more problems than trying to balance the budget normally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
average out everyone's response
Causing everyone to fill out the most extreme results possible to try and bias the average. Even if we use the median, this will require amending the constitution, and averaging a dozen different spending plans is hardly feasible since most budgets designate which projects in particular funding will pay for. You can't build half of a bridge.
Maybe just dock their pay if they can't agree on a balanced budget. I'd be open to that if there was evidence it would be effective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
She is not inherently incapable of understand what reality is, she just doesn't have a built in sense of it. Good luck!
This is getting to the point that I'm not sure what relevance it has to Last Thursdayism.
for it still to be indistinguishable from our human perspective from a god that is all-knowing.
This seems to be an argument that God could be lying about his power or just insane. In that case, it's simply skepticism towards the existence of the Christian god rather than an argument that he would be susceptible to Last Thursdayism.
That said, the only argument designed to prove God with 100% certainty (Ontological) would argue that God cannot lose his power. Kalam argues that events require causes, so adherents to it would argue that God cannot lose his power without cause.
Christians posit that God probably exists currently with x, y, an z attributes. Your initial argument seemed to be that if such a god does exist, he can lose his power. But now you simply seem to be casting doubt on such a God existing in the first place. So I think that this is a different argument than the one you started with.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is South Korea, they call it the War of Northern Aggression.
Created:
Posted in:
Bob will start by using your suggested example. Let's see how that goes for him.
I don't think that's how the conversation would go. Clearly both of us know what "exist" means, and at some point, the term was explained to us.
indistinguishable from the Christian God
I'll just repeat what I said before, since I think it addresses this. God is typically defined as having absolute knowledge, in the same way that a person "knows" they are sentient or feel pain. (I think, therefore I am.) Even if the pain is purely psychological, it's still "pain" in that a person is experiencing it. It's odd to think of someone "knowing" absolute truths in this way, but that's what "all-knowing" means. God has the same amount of certainty that he exists outside of time that we have in knowing we exist. So "absolute knowledge" cannot exist unless the thing God is certain of is true. If it were false, God wouldn't be certain of it. So the two Gods aren't identical, since one has absolute certainty he is all-powerful, and the other one doesn't.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I gave links
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
You seem to assume that Democrats are likely to pass those policies effectively and that they will help the average person economically. While it's hard to say what either party is likely to accomplish overall, Democrats get a lot of things wrong.
- Rent control—81% of economists oppose, only 2% support
- $15 minimum wage—most economists oppose
- Biden's student loan forgiveness—most economists oppose
- More economists support school choice than oppose it. Democrats don't tend to like school choice.
- Let's not forget that plenty of Democrats would seem to support the labor theory of value, which has been repeatedly debunked.
To their credit, Democrats seem more favorable toward a carbon tax than Republicans, which is something most economists prefer to income taxes. But that's too politically unpopular for either party to pass on a large scale.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good
Do you think it's in an individual's best interest to commit suicide? Most people don't (not even anti-natalists), so it seems to me that people tend to prefer existing to not existing.
A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect).
I don't think that's how dopamine works. A lot of food tastes better than not being hungry in the first place.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
And make Mexico pay for it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You can affect crime rates by committing crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I know what they mean
I think this is good enough for our purposes. The discussion on semantics seems largely tangential to the discussion of Last-Thursdayism, at least based on what's been said so far.
most words still trace back to entirely separate words, which in turn can be defined by pointing to something in reality. (e.g. "See that there? That's what an apple is!")
We can do that for "exist" too. ("That apple exists. Now imagine a purple apple with a smiley face. That apple doesn't exist.")
Rather, I see no reason that anyone should hold these beliefs, but I also see no way that they can be dismissed with absolute certainty.
Agree for the most part. Something can be extremely improbable but still possible. I only delve into certainty when I say that "if an omniscient God exists, by the Christian understanding of omniscience, then the Last-Thursday scenario would not be possible." That's granting a premise that you probably don't agree with, but I think it addresses some of the claims you made in your initial post.
I also see no way that they can be dismissed with absolute certaintyThere are notions of God which don't require absolute knowledge.
I think your argument boils down to saying that hypothetically a God could exist who isn't as powerful as they think. I agree that there's probably some conception of God that meets those criteria. I brought up Christian conceptions of God because you mentioned the Christian religion a number of times in your original post.
Created:
Posted in:
As previously stated, the dictionary definition doesn't cut it.
Real means "accurate, not imaginary." We can go on defining terms, but I'm fairly sure you know what they mean.
The whole point of all of this is to challenge the standard notion of causality.
Again I'd appeal to Occam's razor, but I have a feeling you've got something prepared on that front...
suppose that God doesn't actually exist outside of time, He just thinks He does
God is typically defined as having absolute knowledge, in the same way that a person "knows" they are sentient or feel pain. (I think, therefore I am.) Even if the pain is purely psychological, it's still "pain" in that a person is experiencing it. It's odd to think of someone "knowing" absolute truths in this way, but that's what "all-knowing" means. God has the same amount of certainty that he exists outside of time that we have in knowing we exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
existence
The state of having objective reality.
- If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?
I think you're saying that we have no way of knowing whether anything is "real" except for logical concepts, but I also think Occam's razor applies here.
All of His power will disappear next Thursday at noon
How? There has to be some means by which that happens, and no entity can be more powerful than an all-powerful being. Add to that the fact that God exists outside of time and knows exactly what will happen at every point in the future. What you're suggesting is incompatible with the concept of God, since he created and controls time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
He agreed with oromagi's definition, I think.
Created:
Posted in:
- Too vague. I don't know what you mean here.
Basically, if we define a woman based on "a person who feels like a woman," then we should be specific about what that feeling is.
Take disability, for example.
I think this is a good example. You don't have to care how other people label you, yet the term "disabled" must be defined in order to serve a useful purpose in conversation. The government defines the term in a particular way for obvious reasons—with no standard of what counts as a disability, it's impossible to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act.
More broadly, when people talk about disability, the term means impaired by a physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition. If it's clear that this is the definition we're using, then it's clear what we mean when it is said that someone has a disability.
The issue that I think occurs when defining a woman as someone who "feels like a woman" is that it's too vague to be useful. Some feelings are the opposite of other feelings. I don't know what it's like to be transgender, but trans person A doesn't know exactly what trans person B is thinking either. Subjective experiences aren't easy to communicate and hard to use as the basis for a formal definition. So whether we are using gender theory or sex to categorize men and women, there needs to be some basis for what these terms are.
The question "What is a woman?" is a different one from "Are people's experiences valid?" The first one does become important in certain cases (sports and education, for example), though it is often unimportant, since someone's identity often has no effect on other people, as you mentioned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Obviously, that is true, but it seems distinct from the semantic discussion I think Lxam is trying to have. All persons have unique experiences, but not all persons are women. That distinction is going to depend on which experiences we are referring to and what criteria are being measured. Subjective experiences are of great consequence to individuals, but formal definitions require concrete descriptions of those experiences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I understand, but the definition they provide is "an adult female human," which would seem to exclude trans women given the biological definition of "female." It may be that I misunderstand your position on transgender issues, but this seems contrary to what you've said in the past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Are you using the biological definition of female?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
So basically Native American reservations, but for black people? I'm curious about if you think those were a good idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Wrong kind of segregation.
What's the "right" kind of segregation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Won’t know until it’s tried.
It has been tried; most notably during the Jim Crow era. We know that integration was a primary goal of the civil rights movement and that it led to better race relations as a result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
@Kaitlyn
and 1/4 of total polled were actively against people being White
Stay Away From Black People
Do you really think segregation, voluntary or otherwise, is going to improve race relations?
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I was responding to Lxam's statement about conservatives.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
To be fair, I wouldn't say OP provided a reasonable explanation or a solution.
Created:
[Dropped by Savant]
I said "Black people actually mostly commit crimes against other Black people" which was not disproven.
[Not answered by Savant]
If we knew what the causes were, then we could control for them. Criminologists have discovered some causes of crime, and I suspect they will discover more causes in the years to come. You can't control for the effects of some historical event like slavery unless you know exactly what those causes are.
The retraction was based a lot on ideological grounds, rather than factual grounds.
"The correspondent and geneticist each comment that the genes responsible for skin pigmentation in humans are completely different to the genes in these animals. It therefore makes no sense to extrapolate from these animal studies to humans."
"As required of a review paper, the authors should have been aware of a literature showing that black-white differences in the best-available measure of psychopathy are negligible (Skeem et al., 2004)"
"Rushton & Templer ignored obvious social and educational explanations for higher levels of violence, HIV infection etc. in African and Caribbean countries"
"Rushton & Templer made several errors when interpreting the results summarised by Ducrest et al."
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
"It has recently come to our attention that the following article published in PAID contains sufficient errors and misrepresentation to require our attention, review and action"
Hence, "Retracted."
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
so many more crimes against Whites and Hispanics
Black people actually mostly commit crimes against other Black people, not Whites and Hispanics in particular. They commit more crimes in general, which you probably already know, and the causes for this are debated. I assume you will use this to support your conclusion that Black people are genetically wired to be more violent. But there are simply too many societal factors to control for all of them, and there's no biological evidence that melanin causes violence in humans. We could go back and forth with studies on this, as we have before, but I'm more interested in hearing what you think is causing the discrepancy.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
And we have. Most people know that crime rates vary by race. But I assume you want us to act on this information, or you wouldn't be making a post about it. Are you proposing we increase racial profiling? Bring back segregation? Develop a general disdain for black people? It's not clear what it is you want us to change based on these statistics, which is why people keep guessing at your conclusions.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
What is it you want people to do with this information?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Shouldn't you be supporting them? If Trump wins, Biden will probably get reelected.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, I misread that one and thought you were asking someone to defend the claim "There is no such thing as a medically necessary abortion." It looks like we're on the same page though.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pre-term delivery is sometimes required, but typically an abortion is performed in a way that directly kills the child. For example, at 24 weeks, the baby might need to be delivered pre-term and might not be able to survive. But an abortion, as typically defined and performed, would guarantee the death of the child for no good reason. There's the question of whether it's ethical to deliver a nonviable child, but that's not what's being referred to here.
Defenses of abortion end to refer to the complications of pregnancy, but there's no reason to prefer abortion over a pre-term delivery, especially when the child will likely survive the delivery. In these cases, it seems like people are just trying to get rid of the inconvenience of raising a child via infanticide, rather than having actual medical concerns.
EDIT: Actually, it looks like this is what you were saying. But I'll leave this up as a source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There's a difference between immodesty and indecent exposure.
Its not like the boys control themselves
Actually, you can just not rape someone. It's not difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Children of either gender should probably dress properly. I find it worrying how many minors are posting themselves half naked on social media, when they're way too young to understand the long-term consequences of that decision. When it comes to adults though, a woman who dresses immodestly knows that it may increase the chances of rape (though I'm not sure it actually does) and is willing to accept that risk. That's not to say the victim is responsible for rape, it's simply acknowledging that some factors may increase the chances of being assaulted. I say "may," because I'm not sure the data is actually there to show it makes a difference.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
According to Catholic teaching, or strict Arminianism, yes. Some Protestants would probably say that being saved makes you the kind of person who wouldn't give up salvation and that free will occurs in the decision to be saved. Calvinists believe you can't lose salvation, but they don't believe in free will in that regard.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Don't worry. Kaitlyn has plenty of opinions more absurd than that.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I think the post was meant to be sarcastic.
Created: