Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[squealpiggy]

SJW's have a problem with corporations and, more specifically people who belong to to the investor class. These are viewed as people who produce nothing in society and simply enjoy unearned privilege by virtue of having enough money to participate in investment schemes.

I've noticed that this seems to be the standard caricature of moneymen by enti-establishment types. Of course they neglect to realise that "the investor class" includes anybody who has a bank account.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Take the following poem, copy and paste it into the A+ forum, sign it something like "Bob Smith", sit back and wait for the Aplussers to tear it apart in the way they went ballistic on that limerick last fall.

Bob Smith from the Cure?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

SJW's have a problem with corporations and, more specifically people who belong to to the investor class. These are viewed as people who produce nothing in society and simply enjoy unearned privilege by virtue of having enough money to participate in investment schemes.

I suppose that depends on how much you know about financial trading and how much of a risk-taker you are. It's possible to open a spread betting account with as little as £50 and you can, with a mixture of skill, luck and time, turn that into a small fortune. It's not advisable, though.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

At the completely opposite end of the spectrum, we have this post by Ally Mcbeal which is an awesome demonstration that rationality is possible when dealing with topics like feminism and that sentiment follows through in the comments section.

I'd say that he missed out a crucial reason - the way that some feminists approach the subject is counter-productive.

 

[Stout]

I've noticed that this seems to be the standard caricature of moneymen by enti-establishment types. Of course they neglect to realise that "the investor class" includes anybody who has a bank account.



Bob Smith from the Cure?

I wouldn't classify anyone who has a bank account as investor class as they'd have to have an awful lot of money in there to live off the interest but I do see you point though.

Just a name I made up on the spot, one that sounded white and male. I was thinking of using Richie Rich though.

I suppose that depends on how much you know about financial trading and how much of a risk-taker you are. It's possible to open a spread betting account with as little as £50 and you can, with a mixture of skill, luck and time, turn that into a small fortune. It's not advisable, though.

Yes, I've heard the stories before, usually from people who are currently "making their fortune" but alas, after time passes and I inquire as to how well that day trading/currency speculation/short selling scheme went I usually get the response I get from former MLM keeners.....I don't want to talk about it.

I Like One Red Paperclip guy's idea.

I'd say that he missed out a crucial reason - the way that some feminists approach the subject is counter-productive.

Agreed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, I've heard the stories before, usually from people who are currently "making their fortune" but alas, after time passes and I inquire as to how well that day trading/currency speculation/short selling scheme went I usually get the response I get from former MLM keeners.....I don't want to talk about it.

I think the stats are that something like 4 out of 5 people who play the stock markets lose money. But that's true of all investing. The point is that you don't need the £1,000 that it's often assumed you need in order to get started (although it is advisable). Investing isn't an exclusive club for the rich, as you can start off with as little as £50 and, if you're careful, patient, lucky, and informed, you can build that up. The same applies for £1,000, which isn't a large amount to start with, in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not saying that investing is without risks, or that you're likely to make money doing it. There are plenty of risks involved, and most people lose money doing it. The first rule of investing is that if you cannot afford to lose all the money in your investment account, then don't invest at all. Most people don't invest, and most people shouldn't invest. What I am saying is that the idea that you need a lot of money to get started is flat-out wrong. You can start a spread betting account with as little as £50, and the spread betting company won't allow you to make any bets that you don't have enough money in your account to cover if they lose.

The "investor class" can include absolutely anybody who has £50 to spare and the willingness to risk it all on a 50p bet. Which is almost anybody with the right frame of mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, that's what I'm saying, although of course not in those terms. An alternative phrasing would be: do you value a system that maximises personal choice in how everyone lives their lives, where those who don't produce much don't get free rides, or do you want a nanny state making everyone dependent on it, lowering the incentive to work hard?

You can use objective criteria, but there is disagreement on what those criteria should be. That's what I meant by opinion.

That's a completely false representation of the evidence based conclusions I described.

Your "free ride" and "nanny state" myths are right wing narratives that the data does not support.

I don't think I want to debate this further than that. I suggest you look for the data that supports those narratives and see if you find empty slogans or actual evidence.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That's a completely false representation of the evidence based conclusions I described.

Your "free ride" and "nanny state" myths are right wing narratives that the data does not support.

I don't think I want to debate this further than that. I suggest you look for the data that supports those narratives and see if you find empty slogans or actual evidence.

I think the point here is that whether, for example, there should be nationalised healthcare or not is a matter of opinion. I'm sure there's plenty of data which could say, for example, that national healthcare is the best way to ensure the largest percent of the population remains healthy, but whether that's more important than individuals being in charge of their own healthcare, including how much is spent on it or not is a matter of opinion. You can say "what about the people who cannot afford their own healthcare?", which is a valid question to ask. But whether the answer to that question is "of course they should be provided for by the state" or "it's not my problem, because they are not me or my children", or anything in between is a matter of opinion.

I would also respectfully suggest that if you are making a claim, then the onus is on you to supply the evidence which you believe supports that claim, rather than on the person you're attempting to convince to seek it out for themselves.

 

[Lorentz]

At the completely opposite end of the spectrum, we have this post by Ally Mcbeal which is an awesome demonstration that rationality is possible when dealing with topics like feminism and that sentiment follows through in the comments section.

I'd read that before and meant to remark, but forgot. What struck me is this:

“Wonder if [Ally Fogg] who I spoke with on BBC this morning has had as many “stupid bitch” comments/emails as I have since….” The answer, of course, was no. I had received precisely none. Not so much as a token “dick.”

That looks like an actual data point that maybe women do get more harassment online than men. First solid one that I've seen, but I'm counting it.

 

[Lorentz]

That's a completely false representation of the evidence based conclusions I described.

Your "free ride" and "nanny state" myths are right wing narratives that the data does not support.

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Those are emphatically not my narratives. My point was that the narrative on what criteria, objective or not, should be used, is not settled and probably can't be in any objective manner. Not that we're likely to disagree on whether Ukraine or Denmark are healthier societies; the debate tends to be whether Germany or the U.S. are better. Me, I choose France.

p.s. I do think nanny states exist - I live in one of them and generally consider it a good idea. As for free rides, I don't discount the narrative entirely. Any system will suffer some abuse, the real discussion should be where you want the balance between unnecessary hardships and possibilities to abuse the system.

p.p.s. You seriously read me as a rabid right-winger based on that? Intriguing, maybe I'm a better devil's advocate than I thought.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That looks like an actual data point that maybe women do get more harassment online than men. First solid one that I've seen, but I'm counting it.

I'm not sure there's quite enough data there to actually count that as a solid point. I think, at the very least, you'd have to look at their tweets of that morning, what articles they'd published at that point that comments could be left on, etc. We should also see the comments and emails themselves, as self-reporting of these kinds of things can sometimes be a little unrepresentative of the truth.

I agree that it's the first bit of actual evidence I've seen, but I don't think there's enough there to classify it as a solid datapoint just yet.

 

[Lorentz]

SJW's have a problem with corporations and, more specifically people who belong to to the investor class. These are viewed as people who produce nothing in society and simply enjoy unearned privilege by virtue of having enough money to participate in investment schemes.

I wouldn't call myself a SJW in any way, shape or form, but I have some problems with that as well. The problems being:

a) Many large corporations are able to strongly influence policy through throwing money at politicians and/or their parties. That seems like a perversion of democracy.

b) While I don't have a problem with the likes of Paris Hilton frittering their lives away on inherited money per se, I see it as a problem when for instance, the wealthiest 0.1% have more wealth and income than the bottom 80%. If you don't see that as a problem, maybe we should go into greater detail elsewhere?

Furthermore, I don't think you phrased it well. I think it should be "people who produce nothing in society and simply enjoy unearned privilege by virtue of having enough money to live like Roman emperors from just returns in investment schemes."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the point here is that whether, for example, there should be nationalised healthcare or not is a matter of opinion. I'm sure there's plenty of data which could say, for example, that national healthcare is the best way to ensure the largest percent of the population remains healthy, but whether that's more important than individuals being in charge of their own healthcare, including how much is spent on it or not is a matter of opinion. You can say "what about the people who cannot afford their own healthcare?", which is a valid question to ask. But whether the answer to that question is "of course they should be provided for by the state" or "it's not my problem, because they are not me or my children", or anything in between is a matter of opinion.

I would also respectfully suggest that if you are making a claim, then the onus is on you to supply the evidence which you believe supports that claim, rather than on the person you're attempting to convince to seek it out for themselves.

Pick an outcome measure and look at the actual data. Don't assume the narrative is true just because you've always believed it.

You are imagining that people without health care coverage die peacefully at home. No, the show up for the most expensive care in the ED, don't pay the bill they can't afford and the hospital adds the cost of it's bad (aka uncollected) debt to the bills of the paying customers. It's been discussed with supporting citations ad nauseum in this forum.

It's a knee jerk tactic around here when facts are inconvenient to say, "you didn't spoon feed me enough therefore I can dismiss your argument."

Dismiss away. I don't care.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think you are misunderstanding my point. Those are emphatically not my narratives. My point was that the narrative on what criteria, objective or not, should be used, is not settled and probably can't be in any objective manner. Not that we're likely to disagree on whether Ukraine or Denmark are healthier societies; the debate tends to be whether Germany or the U.S. are better. Me, I choose France.

p.s. I do think nanny states exist - I live in one of them and generally consider it a good idea. As for free rides, I don't discount the narrative entirely. Any system will suffer some abuse, the real discussion should be where you want the balance between unnecessary hardships and possibilities to abuse the system.

p.p.s. You seriously read me as a rabid right-winger based on that? Intriguing, maybe I'm a better devil's advocate than I thought.

I appreciate you are a better devil's advocate than you thought.

But my argument remains unchanged, those narratives are based on political campaigns, not based on simply choosing different outcome measures.

As I said to Squeegee: You are imagining that people without health care coverage die peacefully at home. No, they show up for the most expensive care in the ED, don't pay the bill they can't afford and the hospital adds the cost of it's bad (aka uncollected) debt to the bills of the paying customers.

Unless we are willing to let people die on the ED steps, someone is picking up the tab.


As for the nanny state, again, the narrative. Sure, maybe you don't like the rules that say you can't let the weeds get more than 12 inches in your yard. There are always going to be some stupid rules out there.

But the bulk of the regulations are there to keep BP from filling the Gulf with oil and killing workers in explosions. I don't want to worry that the berries in my freezer are going to give me hep A. Cherry picking some regulations and claiming it's a nanny state is not an evidence based means of assessing the nanny.

 

[Lorentz]

As for the nanny state, again, the narrative. Sure, maybe you don't like the rules that say you can't let the weeds get more than 12 inches in your yard. There are always going to be some stupid rules out there.

But the bulk of the regulations are there to keep BP from filling the Gulf with oil and killing workers in explosions. I don't want to worry that the berries in my freezer are going to give me hep A. Cherry picking some regulations and claiming it's a nanny state is not an evidence based means of assessing the nanny.

You appear to assume that I'm from the US and am talking about the US.
Neither is the case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You appear to assume that I'm from the US and am talking about the US.
Neither is the case.

So which country(ies) are you calling nanny states and how does it matter in this discussion?

All references to nanny states are going to have similar issues, are they not? People claim regulations are excessive or unnecessary, while others see them as keeping people safe and keeping some from exploiting others.

I did assume you were talking about the US since the term, nanny state, has been used repeatedly by the right wing faction headed by Rand and Ron Paul. I didn't assume you were from the US but at least familiar with our current politics since you were using narratives the right wing is currently focused on here.

 

[Stout]

I think the stats are that something like 4 out of 5 people who play the stock markets lose money. But that's true of all investing. The point is that you don't need the £1,000 that it's often assumed you need in order to get started (although it is advisable). Investing isn't an exclusive club for the rich, as you can start off with as little as £50 and, if you're careful, patient, lucky, and informed, you can build that up. The same applies for £1,000, which isn't a large amount to start with, in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not saying that investing is without risks, or that you're likely to make money doing it. There are plenty of risks involved, and most people lose money doing it. The first rule of investing is that if you cannot afford to lose all the money in your investment account, then don't invest at all. Most people don't invest, and most people shouldn't invest. What I am saying is that the idea that you need a lot of money to get started is flat-out wrong. You can start a spread betting account with as little as £50, and the spread betting company won't allow you to make any bets that you don't have enough money in your account to cover if they lose.

The "investor class" can include absolutely anybody who has £50 to spare and the willingness to risk it all on a 50p bet. Which is almost anybody with the right frame of mind.

Yea, I heard 95% of investors loose money. I'm a bit on an investment wuss so I put my money in "safe" stuff, mutual funds, for the long term. Lost 30% in 2008 and I've only just recovered now. That's almost five years of making zero on my money. Pre 2008 I figured I could have lived frugally off the interest alone and had I decided to chuck the professional artist gig and join the investor class, I'd have been one sad panda.

What I've seen the SJWs opposed to is the idea of investing, not so much the dollar figures that can result. The getting something for nothing is somehow not fair, or not equitable with not even a nod given to the losses, or potential for loss in investing.

 

[Stout]

I'd read that before and meant to remark, but forgot. What struck me is this:


That looks like an actual data point that maybe women do get more harassment online than men. First solid one that I've seen, but I'm counting it.

Oooops..I actually typed Ally McBeal rather than Ally Fogg. Freudian slip.

I'm wondering whether it has anything to do with his approach and I'm curious as to what would happen if a woman was delivering feminist content in the way he is.

 

[kid meatball]

What I've seen the SJWs opposed to is the idea of investing, not so much the dollar figures that can result. The getting something for nothing is somehow not fair, or not equitable with not even a nod given to the losses, or potential for loss in investing.

They must have a mixed up idea of how investing works. In most cases, investing directly results in jobs. I'd be out of work right now if it wasn't for investments.

Its not really a something for nothing sort of situation. An investor takes a huge risk putting money in anything. They should be rewarded for that.

You could look at an example like Bill Gates when he was still CEO of Microsoft. He was worth billions. Most of it tied up in investments of all kinds. But that kind of cash invested right literally results in millions of jobs around the world. Maybe not directly, but man a metric crap-ton of people use Windows products and that means a lot of people make their living from servicing, building, and selling those products.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Pick an outcome measure and look at the actual data.

On what objective criteria do you decide what outcome measure you want?

You are imagining that people without health care coverage die peacefully at home.

Am I?

It's a knee jerk tactic around here when facts are inconvenient to say, "you didn't spoon feed me enough therefore I can dismiss your argument."

Dismiss away. I don't care.

I'm not dismissing anything. And what you call a "knee-jerk tactic" is what's commonly referred to as "burden of proof". If you make a claim, then the onus is on you to support it.

You seem to think that it's some kind of sly debating tactic, or a dodge of some kind. Actually, there's a very pragmatic reason for it. Let's say that you're trying to support proposition A. There have been lots of studies done of proposition A, but none of them by themselves are really conclusive. There is, however, a meta-analysis which establishes with a very small margin of error that proposition A is true. Now, your google-fu is better than mine and, in any case, I use Bing. You know what you're looking for more than I do, because you know you saw the meta-analysis printed in Meta-Analysis Weekly and the story picked up by The Flugelhorn national paper. I don't know these things and don't know what I'm looking for. I search and all I find is inconclusive studies. If, however, you spend the 10 seconds it would take you to find and post the evidence which actually convinced you that proposition A is true, then I could read the meta-analysis and say "hey, what a well-conducted meta-analysis. It certainly does establish that proposition A is true". Then you've increased the knowledge of the human race, both at that particular time, and in the future when I direct people to that study.

Just saying "do your own bloody research" doesn't help anybody with anything. All it does is engender bad feelings and give the impression that the evidence that you claim exists exists only in your head.

So, I guess it depends on whether you're interested in having a discussion or an argument which approach is best.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Unless we are willing to let people die on the ED steps, someone is picking up the tab.

And it's a matter of opinion as to whether people should be allowed to die on the steps or not. Unless you have some objective criteria by which you're determining your answer?