"
diablofdb wrote:
Welp I guess now in Canada we're in the lucky group of countries that suffer from terrorism now. And of course our prime minister is simply talking about "an accident". hehhh it's a sad day.
Too early to tell if it's terrorism or not.
Still, it's very tragic and something I wish never happened.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
|
Posted byfaerwin#5850on Apr 23, 2018, 5:39:23 PMAlpha Member
|
"
1453R wrote:
Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality. Remember: 'Christian Values' also includes terrorizing young children with stories about how they're going to burn forever in a demon-infested pit if they're not obedient little larvae who believe in the Giant Space Man their parents were raised to believe in.
Children can be raised successfully by atheistic families. They can be raised successfully by nontraditional family configurations. And a traditional Christian family unit can just as easily fail to raise a child successfully. Nothing produces a fervent atheist as effectively as an oppressively Christian upbringing.
I literally said exactly this in my post. I specifically said non Christians can have great success following Christian traditional marriage values. I have atheist/agnostic friends who do precisely this, and their kids have major advantages in USA society.
Do you just read the first sentence and skim or what?
You don't have to be a Christian to follow the traditional Christian values on marriage. People were doing it for thousands upon thousands of years before the time of Jesus Christ.
Last edited by Khoranth#3239 on Apr 23, 2018, 6:32:35 PM
|
Posted byKhoranth#3239on Apr 23, 2018, 6:26:27 PM
|
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
1453R wrote:
Query:
If Person A performs Action 1, they earn X Fictitious Example Merit Points.
If Person B, from a different set of life circumstances/background, performs Action 1, how many Merit Points do they earn?
If your answer is anything at all other than 'X', then we're not done talking about Bad-ism. Meritorious action should be independent of circumstance in order for 'merit' to be the singular driving force of civilization the way all these far-right folks I keep having this argument with insist should be the case.
Um, person B earns exactly X in a free market with plenty of competition. For instance, if Group A and Group B do the same job (equal merit) but workers from group B get paid 80% what group A gets, and Group A is four times the size of Group B, then an entrepreneur could conquer the market by offering laborers regardless of group 96% of the current Group A going rate. At first they'd attract huge numbers of competent Group B workers, and paying 4% less for the same results would give that entrepreneur a competitive advantage that threatens to wipe out his competition unless they respond in kind. The end result would be a 20% raise for Group B and a 4% pay cut for Group A as labor prices correct.
Assuming a competitive market, there's no need for government intervention regulating racism. Anywhere there's a discrepancy between merit and reward, that's a business opportunity waiting to happen by buying the undervalued commodity (in this case, labor). The only real barrier might be unfair customer perception of quality of product, but if you put out better product cheaper customers are bound to notice eventually, provided one doesn't go bankrupt in the meantime.
I disagree with you scenario because of one thing: marketing.
I honestly dont fully understand the impact of marketing, but when I was 16 I bought a $150 pair of shoes cause Michael Jordan wore them. They weren't any better than a $20 pair of shoes.
I'm not sure how this changes your scenario, but it definitely does.
|
Posted byKhoranth#3239on Apr 23, 2018, 6:43:26 PM
|
"
1453R wrote:
All business, like warfare, is deception. Deceive customers into believing your shit is better than it is. Deceive customers into believing other people's shit is worse than it is. Deceive your employees into believing they're not being taken for everything you can get - or, like Amazon apparently does, simply cow and terrify them into obedience with constant threats of termination for even the smallest of infractions. Perfect knowledge is the bitterest enemy of Business, and they will pay handsomely for trained Marketing and Human Resources professionals who've been taught enough human psychology to know exactly how to lie most effectively to the greatest number of people.
You're forgetting that I was assuming a competitive market. Telling nice things about your product and mean things about competing products is considerably less effective when there's someone saying mean things about your product and nice things about theirs. We're talking about a persuasion competition here, not business vs consumer so much as business vs business - where customers are the judges of who wins.
The tricky part is keeping it competitive, and ultimately I have come to SkyCore's position on this: abolition of intellectual proper rights is the only way to achieve it. No matter who invents a thing, it should never be illegal to bring a competing product to the market cheaper and/or of higher quality. People who defend IP law are basically saying that the free market can't spur innovation and that handing out state-sanctioned monopolies as prizes to inventors, which they then sell to IP trolls, is the only way to spur it.
"
Khoranth wrote:
I disagree with you scenario because of one thing: marketing.
I honestly dont fully understand the impact of marketing, but when I was 16 I bought a $150 pair of shoes cause Michael Jordan wore them. They weren't any better than a $20 pair of shoes.
I'm not sure how this changes your scenario, but it definitely does.
Value is in the eye of the beholder. It's not like you were forced to buy the shoes; you gave them that value. It's your fault you were wrong.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Apr 23, 2018, 8:31:40 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on Apr 23, 2018, 8:25:06 PM
|
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
The tricky part is keeping it competitive, and ultimately I have come to SkyCore's position on this: abolition of intellectual proper rights is the only way to achieve it. No matter who invents a thing, it should never be illegal to bring a competing product to the market cheaper and/or of higher quality. People who defend IP law are basically saying that the free market can't spur innovation and that handing out state-sanctioned monopolies as prizes to inventors, which they then sell to IP trolls, is the only way to spur it.
Intellectual property exists because there are many products that are merely ideas and aren't tangible goods. Software is a good example of this. If intellectual property wasn't a thing, any developer could jump into a project, work on the project, then leave that project and essentially duplicate it elsewhere and take credit for it. That is theft.
Still in the alpha stage, but at least build diversity isn't an issue: https://wolcengame.com/home/
|
Posted byJNF#6963on Apr 23, 2018, 9:32:23 PM
|
"
JNF wrote:
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
The tricky part is keeping it competitive, and ultimately I have come to SkyCore's position on this: abolition of intellectual proper rights is the only way to achieve it. No matter who invents a thing, it should never be illegal to bring a competing product to the market cheaper and/or of higher quality. People who defend IP law are basically saying that the free market can't spur innovation and that handing out state-sanctioned monopolies as prizes to inventors, which they then sell to IP trolls, is the only way to spur it.
Intellectual property exists because there are many products that are merely ideas and aren't tangible goods. Software is a good example of this. If intellectual property wasn't a thing, any developer could jump into a project, work on the project, then leave that project and essentially duplicate it elsewhere and take credit for it. That is theft.
1. I am arguing against IP laws, but I am not arguing against nondisclosure/non-compete agreements. It's reasonable for businesses to expect that their employees will not sell secrets to competitors nor go to work for them immediately after quitting, and to have a means to seek redress if they do. Non-competes, however, should be limited to restricting employment with direct competitors for the product in development and not shackle employees to a single employer.
2. Software would still exist even if all of it was open-source. Even if it wasn't, we have crowdfunding models like Kickstarter and GoFundMe to pay programmers, in full if need be, to create software before they even release it. Example from the music industry: much-pirated band Mindless Self Indulgence held its then-untitled album How I Learned to Stop Giving a Shit and Love Mindless Self Indulgence " hostage" behind a Kickstarter paywall until the goal was met and finally made some decent bank off of their art... something labels had never been able to achieve despite their sizeable and long-held (and piracy-loving) cult following.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Apr 23, 2018, 10:21:03 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on Apr 23, 2018, 10:03:58 PM
|
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
"
1453R wrote:
Query:
If Person A performs Action 1, they earn X Fictitious Example Merit Points.
If Person B, from a different set of life circumstances/background, performs Action 1, how many Merit Points do they earn?
If your answer is anything at all other than 'X', then we're not done talking about Bad-ism. Meritorious action should be independent of circumstance in order for 'merit' to be the singular driving force of civilization the way all these far-right folks I keep having this argument with insist should be the case.
Um, person B earns exactly X in a free market with plenty of competition. For instance, if Group A and Group B do the same job (equal merit) but workers from group B get paid 80% what group A gets, and Group A is four times the size of Group B, then an entrepreneur could conquer the market by offering laborers regardless of group 96% of the current Group A going rate. At first they'd attract huge numbers of competent Group B workers, and paying 4% less for the same results would give that entrepreneur a competitive advantage that threatens to wipe out his competition unless they respond in kind. The end result would be a 20% raise for Group B and a 4% pay cut for Group A as labor prices correct.
Incorrect. If aforementioned circumstances that a person from group B has include risk factors which pose a risk of losing money to the company, few companies would be willing to increase that risk by slightly lowering the pay. The simplest example is male vs female wages: if there's two employee candidates with the exact same credentials, one male one female, the male has a statistically higher likelihood to get hired. The reason for this is pregnancy. From an employers standpoint this is a risk factor that costs money, can possibly be difficult to deal with and yields zero benefits to the company itself.
|
|
"
Anonymous1749704 wrote:
The simplest example is male vs female wages: if there's two employee candidates with the exact same credentials, one male one female, the male has a statistically higher likelihood to get hired. The reason for this is pregnancy. From an employers standpoint this is a risk factor that costs money, can possibly be difficult to deal with and yields zero benefits to the company itself.
1. That's not technically wages, but hiring probability.
2. You say the reason is (risk of) pregnancy. Is this an illogical reason, or a realistic one?
3. Are employers allowed to ask probing questions regarding risk of pregnancy - and if not, why not? - such as: Are you on birth control (preferred answer: yes)? What is your sexual orientation (preferred answers: asexual, lesbian)? Are you sterile from tubal ligation or any other means (preferred answer: yes)? Are you sexually active or plan to be in the future (preferred answer: no)? Or how about cutting straight to the chase and waiving family leave privileges?
4. In the event a woman refuses questioning to better determine risk of pregnancy effecting job attendance - as is her right to refuse - does she not invite employers to use generalized risk assessment upon her due to her individual lack of candor?
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB#2697 on Apr 23, 2018, 11:10:16 PM
|
Posted byScrotieMcB#2697on Apr 23, 2018, 10:56:48 PM
|
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
1. That's not technically wages, but hiring probability.
2. You say the reason is (risk of) pregnancy. Is this an illogical reason, or a realistic one?
3. Are employers allowed to ask probing questions regarding risk of pregnancy - and if not, why not? - such as: Are you on birth control? What is your sexual orientation? Are you sterile from tubal ligation or any other means? Are you sexually active or plan to be in the future?
Both 2 and 3 are pointless questions. It's a risk that women inherently possess and men don't. Nobody knows what they're doing a year from now either. Pregnancy is an ever-present risk that any smart employer will acknowledge; to say it doesn't get considered in majority of hiring situations is plain naivete.
And that's just one example. Here's another easy one: ex-cons. No doubt a lot of ex-cons would be happy to work for a minimum wage, just so that they could get back into the speed of things and get a good reference. But again, too many risks involved for employers.
|
|
"
diablofdb wrote:
Welp I guess now in Canada we're in the lucky group of countries that suffer from terrorism now. And of course our prime minister is simply talking about "an accident". hehhh it's a sad day.
Current motive is beta uprising but could be a 4chan fake. Nothing is verified yet.
GGG banning all political discussion shortly after getting acquired by China is a weird coincidence.
|
Posted byXavderion#3432on Apr 23, 2018, 11:22:00 PM
|
