Thank you, I took the same issue you did when reading this.
There are not "truths" in mathematics, it's literally a system of logic with definitions at the bottom (axioms) and then a following of the results based upon the agreed upon logic.
I don't know, anything that implied dogs being raped would have been rejected by me, a layperson who grew up with dogs.
Your argument seems to be more about "because some people were duped, it's ok to assume reasonable people were duped" and that doesn't seem right to me.
So just because something is obviously fake doesn’t really mean much in context. After all the goal of science is to step beyond people’s intuition to discover what’s actually happening. Thus at some level people need to actually consider very odd ideas as possible and then collect data etc.
Maybe this particular study, but I have to say I believe it in general.
I remember working for a manufacturing company where I drove a forklift (during the summer).
One of my most vivid memories is walking into the breakroom and seeing on the television a scrolling banner that declared homosexual couples were less likely to have children than heterosexual couples.
And I remember everyone in that room laughing their asses off. And it's not as if no one in that room realized the reason for the study was so they could take into account things like adoption, etc. It's that the result was so obvious, even taking that into account, that it was amazing that someone was PAID to come to a conclusion that everyone knew without the money.
And this is the crux of the problem with "science". It wants to be "interesting", so it will literally try to drum up something against what "everyone knows".
So the idea that what everyone over generations "knows" is generally more applicable than "science" is not surprising at all.
A lot of the things that "everyone knows" are wrong. The point of science is to have a systematic way to tell the difference between things that seem intuitively true and things that are actually true.
I did a quick search and found a study about percentages of couples raising children [1]. They have a table by couple type and marital status. The difference isn't as stark as you might think.
Looking at the smallest difference in the table, married female/female partnerships have a 30.2% chance of currently raising children, while married male/female partnerships have a 38.7% chance. Is it obvious to you that this would be so close? Would you be surprised if there were countries where the numbers are reversed?
I also doubt that the point of the study was to find out which type of couple had "more" children - even if that is what the news picked up.
It is obviously important for population and demographic research to know just how age, type of couple, divorce, income, etc. effects family size with actual estimates.
I spent a minute looking up the results of existing studies. If a professor at a public university spent a minute to look up an answer for a reporter, I'm ok with that professor having a salary.
The qualitative factor is obvious. But the quantitative may hit that sweet spot. Studying just how many fewer children they have and how that interplays with free time, work and wealth. Or how the decreased contact with the younger generation changes your worldview and psychology.
The scientific process should actually result in people verifying things that seem obvious all the time. Admitting that you might be wrong and checking it even though it seems obvious was a major factor in starting to really increase the density of correct knowledge.
There's still a reason to quantify the taste of eggs. It can tell you how many eggs to bring on an expedition to minimize waste, or how to improve the flavor of eggs or other things, or predict the revenue of a new egg farm. The techniques used to quantify tastiness could then be applied to newly developed foods.
> Previously in our history, you could apprentice and earn almost nothing while you learned a trade. To me, this is much better than paying a school to earn a trade and interning for free.
I think you should read up on guilds and how they operated. You would change your opinion very quickly.
> Safety standards could be addressed by insurability, and this is really a very separate concept from wage.
Sorry, but no. And I'm going to judge you for having that opinion.
The idea that it's acceptable for a human being to lose their sight (or legs or arms or ...) and suffer the quality of life problems that result from it as long as they're covered by insurance is horrendous and I judge you for it.
I don't even care if you come back and tell me you've changed your mind based upon this post. The fact that you needed your mind changed makes you a monster.
You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces.
Again, my example is UL ratings of building materials.
Your response is over the top, and I am quite worried about you talking to me this way, it feels like a threat.
>You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces.
That is just not true. I think it's convenient how everyone forgets the kinds of calculations US corporations make: breaking the law/killing people/not having insurance is cheaper and more profitable than the alternative. Remember the Ford Pinto? Ok, that was probably too long ago. How about Firestone?
Well, that’s a good point. But what if the government merely said ‘without insurance, you can’t operate.’
This would be a modest intervention, but would allow a market of insurers to determine what is safe, so as to reduce cruft.
Maybe it’s flawed, but it works for UL rating and building materials ... no UL certification no insurance, therefore no materials are sold without the certification, even though it is technically legal to sell them. This results in a private market for, say, awesome cherry wood coffee table tops that aren’t regulated, but Sheetrock and structural steel clearly is.
Maybe it wouldn’t work, I’m just saying OSHA and state regulations aren’t the only conceivable way to imagine workplace safety being enforced.
I don’t know. Too me it seems flimsy to rely on insurance alone. It feels like the economic incentives could fluctuate such that there would be opportunity to skimp or exploit insurance.
It feels like you might want to add criminal liability if you distort insurance, in which case you may as well make it illegal outright to jeopardise people’s health.
> Why would I pay an uneducated, inexperienced person to sweep floors $20 per hour? I’ll do it myself first.
Because you don't want to do it or you don't have the time.
If I could pay someone 1 cent per hour to wipe my ass crack I would do it, is it a problem that I must instead wipe my own ass crack?
The answer is literally there in your post, these jobs aren't worth having. Imagine posting this yelling "think of the people who will no longer be able to wipe others' ass cracks!".
Are you making that decision for yourself, or for others? Offer the job, and see if there's takers. If there aren't, then you'll actually know that the job isn't worth having.
I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do it...
Wait, what's that!?!? Are you saying it's acceptable for society to make decisions for those who don't have the leverage to protect themselves?!?! WHAT?!?!? Say it aint so Mr Magoo, say it aint so...
Cause I hurd if you ever make a decision for another human being you're immoral, making all parents immoral. That's just how this shit wurks my brutha!
You seem incoherent. Apparently you're implying I have stockholm syndrome, which is at best an ad homenim. Then you mention some woman I've never heard of, and conclude by asserting that I'm super duper wrong...which isn't particularly informative, useful or even appropriate in a discussion.
To top it off, your grammar is atrocious.
EDIT: I'll ask my question again, with better wording, just for good measure. Are you suggesting that when people look for work, they accept jobs that leave them worse off than they were before?
$20/hour is great if that’s a flat contracting rate. If I have to hire them on at full time, pay payroll taxes, give them health insurance, etc...it might make more sense to just do the sweeping myself.
The comment you replied to already makes the following point, but I'll try to make it more succinctly, since you apparently didn't read the whole comment:
And if we as a society decide that people should have health care, food to eat, and shelter, and that we should put the burden on private companies, we should do so in the form of corporate taxes.
> These jobs did not exist pre-ride-sharing companies.
Is it your contention that taxi's didn't exist pre-Uber? Or that Taxi's weren't jobs done by ordinary people?
I can tell you as someone who is over 40, I would regularly form relationships with Taxi drivers so that I could simply call them up and ask them if they'd be available on X day, X time, and if they could use the "special" rate, and the answer was yes. Where special rate meant paying just them and not the taxi company I met them through.
There is nothing special about Uber or Lyft, and if they leave California the existing Taxi company's will fill in the gap.
My contention is that the number of people driving taxis pre-Uber was vastly less than the number of taxi drivers plus Uber drivers plus Lyft drivers, and the total number of rides-for-hire was vastly lower pre-Uber than post.
Pretty sure that is illegal, if not it is unethical
> if they leave California the existing Taxi company's will fill in the gap.
Clearly there was a demand for something other than taxi's, while you seemed to like it, and did unethical things to get your rate lower. For most people they found the taxi service to be unappealing and over priced, Thus uber and lyft where born
In places like New York, the taxi medallion is only required for picking up people on the street. If the customer calls them up it is a different story, anyone can operate that way (so I don't see why a taxi driver can't do it too on their own time). This is why Uber can exist, regardless whether their drivers are employees or independent.
No one is saying that current laws aren't bullshit, they obviously are.
The point is that that if Uber goes away, it won't stop people from paying for rides.
It's a bit like claiming if Hershey's claimed that people would stop eating chocolate if they couldn't abuse their relationship with local governments to get water rights they have no business having.
Noooooooo, people will still like Chocolate, it's just that more "moral" companies will replace them.
If anything, the value of chocolate will go up and that's perfectly acceptable.
It will stop some people, The number of people that use Uber and Lyft massively exceeds the number of people that used Taxis before them
There is a reason for this, and if your solution is
well people will just use taxis" clearly that was not the case.
>>If anything, the value of chocolate will go up and that's perfectly acceptable
I see you are speaking from a position of Wealth Privilege..
I wonder if you would feel the same if that price increase was in something less of luxury good like Wheat or corn where a price increase would be counted in lives not dollars
The blogger had to be scouted by the agency, which used agency resources, therefore the blogger is totally liable for that risk!!!!!oneoneoneneoneshiftoneshiftoneshiftoneshiftone.
--
Imagine a world in which the risk is taken on by yourself and not others... but of course that's totes not possibru...
Only the person who responded to the person who made such a statement were more polite about it, hence this "discussion".