Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/10/13 07:23 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 12/10/13 06:11 PM, contra1848 wrote: No matter how you cut it, women are still making 70 cents to the male dollar…. so.

I really want to know how they calculated that, because I hear that all the time (sometimes it's 80)

I've tried a simple google search, but came up with nothing worthwhile.

I wish I could tell you, but I don't know myself. Well, not exactly, anyway. I remember reading in my high school economics class that that figure was calculated by a group of professional economists called upon by the Clinton administration to determine if women make the same amount of money as men, or something.

They concluded that 2/3rds of the discrepancy wasn't due to sex-based discrimination(Rather, market forces, I think), but couldn't account for the last 1/3 and presumed that it was due to sexism in the workplace.

I wish I could be more specific and detailed, but that's all I can remember. I'm sure someone on this forum knows much more about it.

I'm glad that you've taken up an interest in the issue of men's rights without bashing feminism; far too many men's rights activists believe that feminism is some evil force that must be stopped at all costs. I'm also glad that you want to have an honest and civil discussion on the matter and I'm happy to oblige such a request.

At 12/9/13 06:43 AM, Greynight wrote: I've recently become interested in this topic when a friend showed me one of girlwriteswhat's videos on Youtube and we had a lengthy discussion about it. Since then I've been all over the web to many MRM (Men's Rights Movement) sites and have read many interesting stories and articles relating to the subject. I have to admit a lot of it was confusing at first, but the more I read the more I became intrigued. I began noticing several men's issues that have been dismissed and overlooked as well widespread censorship being used to suppress and deny much of the information on these sites. Now, after talking to various people online and off I wanted to see if anyone else here shares any of my beliefs on this topic. I'm not criticizing feminism or women's rights, but I feel that as far as laws and expectations from society are concerned men have been given the short end of the stick in several areas.

Although life is a lot easier in this society and virtually every other as a man, you are right; there are some problems that disproportionately affect men, such as suicide rates, homelessness, and college attendance rates.

For example, female infant genital mutilation is seen as a violation of the child's rights in the USA, but removal of a male baby's foreskin is legal and solely up to the parents despite the fact that it is a life-altering decision that will effect that child for the rest of their life. There are several other double standards I have come across as well and they are far too numerous to all be listed here. Getting to the point, what I want to know is what is everyone's opinion on this matter. Do you support the idea that men are discriminated and if so, more or less than women are? Do you believe the MRM is important and needed for true gender equality? Do you think men's right groups and female right's groups should work together for the benefit of everyone?

In regards to male circumcision, I oppose it for moral reasons. It, like female circumcision, is a violation of a child's rights. I don't care what Judaism or any other religion that proscribes male circumcision believes; it is wrong and that is that. Any circumcision procedure must be performed with the consent of the person it is being performed on, male or female.

In regards to your broader questions, no, I don't think men are more discriminated against than women are. Quite frankly, life is a whole lot easier as a man despite the double standards and ridiculous societal expectations men must deal with on a day-to-day basis. But these issues that are commonly discussed in the world of "men's rights" must be rectified in order for true gender equality to exist. The same goes for "women's rights."

You could say that I'm both a feminist and a masculinist.

I don't care if you're with me or against me, a feminist or anti-feminist, left-leaning or right-leaning... I just want to have a thoughtful, intellectual discussion here. Everyone deserves to have their opinion heard and I think we can all remain civil and courteous to one another even when we disagree. If you have any opinion whatsoever I'd be very interested to hear it and together we can share our ideas and facts without prejudice or worry of censorship. I think discrimination hurts us all and that if we can use reason and understanding both men and women can come one step closer to eliminating sexism. Please share your thoughts below and I'll respond as soon as I can.

Once again, I commend your desire to have an enlightened and civil discussion predicated on reason and logic.

But let me just tell you right now that there are some people on this forum who are going to start calling you, me and others names and acting like children. Just a heads-up.

At 12/7/13 01:34 PM, Feoric wrote:

Y'know, rational actors and all that. In 101 you generally assume that people's behavior follow very simple functions. If you decide to go to another level of econ you'll see that the models you were taught in 101 will be modified to show more complex functions that you would expect to see in the real world.

Gotcha. Thanks a lot!

I just submitted my University of California application a couple of weeks ago. I'm hoping to successfully transfer from my community college to UCLA, or maybe UC Berkeley. I think I have a very good shot because of my high GPA. But I can't afford to fuck up in this math class I'm taking in the winter. Wish me luck!

At 12/6/13 11:09 PM, Feoric wrote:
The minimum wage was established in 1938. Someone like Xenomit, who is highly against government intervention in the market, might be wondering how the free market was treating workers pre-circa '38. Let's find out. In 1911, the average annual salary for a seamstress working at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was 312 dollars, or 6 dollars per week. Adjusted for inflation for 2013 dollars, that would be roughly 7,800 dollars, or 150 dollars per week. Anyone making that little money would be living under crushing poverty, and I doubt people were singing a different tune about poor people back then as they are now. In 1911, you would hear people say that six dollars per week was the equilibrium point. I have no snark when I say this, but the 101 model you presented presumes that current wages came about from a fairly agreed upon contract between two equal perfectly informed parties at the equilibrium price of supply and demand. That's simply not true in the real world.

I think I understand. Still, I suppose it would behoove me to study economics a little bit more. I've heard that the so-called truths that you learn in Econ 101 are not entirely true. You're probably right.

At 12/6/13 05:34 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/6/13 05:28 PM, ohbombuh wrote:

At 12/6/13 05:14 PM, Feoric wrote: I will refer you to Trillionaire's excellent post.

The one where he completely ignores the concepts of supply and demand and calls other people uneducated in economics? What do you hope to prove with that?

What effect does a higher minimum wage have on supply and demand?

In all fairness, I have to say that I'm taking an macroeconomics class right now and I was told that increasing the minimum wage above the equilibrium wage increases the "supply of labor"(I think this is just a fancy way of saying unemployment) and decreases the "demand for labor." I have my Econ textbook right now and I'm just paraphrasing from it as I'm typing this post.

Regardless, I think it's probably worth the cost and that it may be a little overstated. Tying it to inflation as you said before shouldn't be much of a problem and making it equivalent to the minimum wage of the late 1960s shouldn't be either.

At 12/5/13 11:42 PM, TheKlown wrote:

At 12/5/13 10:52 PM, Light wrote: Whenever I read posts from TheKlown, my IQ drops 10~15 points. I should really stop doing that.

Pretty sure that is from all the crack you have smoked.

Daaaaayummmmmn, nice comeback. Totally stunned at that one!

Whenever I read posts from TheKlown, my IQ drops 10~15 points. I should really stop doing that.

At 12/5/13 04:29 PM, 24901miles wrote:
How about adjusting for productivity? By some calculations minimum wage tied to productivity would be approaching $22/hr. The Center for Economic and Policy Research says minimum wage increases to $16.54 an hour would be reasonable.

Here, I'll copy-paste a few paragraphs because I know NGers (except you and a few others) don't click and read through sources, but they definitely absorb a few sentences from tall posts before their attention spans break:

I read the copy-pasted material and remember hearing about its conclusions months back when Sen. Elizabeth Warren(D-MA) talked about it. Because I'm not much of an expert in economics, I can't really comment on whether linking minimum wage to productivity is a good idea or not. I suppose it would have been if U.S. wages in general had not stagnated for several decades now. U.S. GDP per capita is ~$50,000 but would be much higher if income inequality wasn't such a problem in this country.

Feoric is correct. Although a wage increase to $15 an hour is pretty ridiculous and will probably result in the loss of jobs and increased prices, an increase to $10 an hour is much more reasonable and was at one point, when adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage in the U.S. It didn't seem to damage the economy or anything, as opponents of minimum wage increases always claim will happen if we enact wage increases.

At 12/2/13 09:29 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/29/13 02:40 AM, T3XT wrote: "Corporation for Public Broadcasting - $451 million"

That's $451 million that could be spent on something more important. It's small in the grand scheme of things but it is another multimillion-dollar unnecessary exspense that we could do without.

Just imagine the money we could be saving if we cut out little things like this.

Wow, look at those savings: .012% shaved off of FY2012 expenditures. Now we're getting places.

In spite of the abysmal amount of funding that PBS receives, it still manages to provide an immensely beneficial public service to the people of the U.S.

I think we should increase its funding, not decrease it.

At 11/29/13 12:04 AM, Korriken wrote:
the Democrats attack the Republicans and the Republicans defend themselves. This, in my opinion is the main problem with the Republican's strategy.

Republicans are just as vicious and you know it. Don't lie to yourself.

If the republicans want to win. all they need to do is begin fighting back and laying on the pain to their opposition. standing around screaming "We're not racists!" and not fighting back is the best way to lose.

The best way to lose is for Republicans to embrace racist elements in their party, actively disenfranchise minorities, and appeal harder than ever to white people, a dwindling demographic in this country. Sadly, they already do this.

Instead, simply remind the population that the Democrats had Robert Byrd, KKK member as one of their own, and even celebrated the racist's time in office, which included such things as filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964. and voting against the nominations of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court.

Oh boy, looks like I have to educate you on the history of the Democratic Party.

Long story short, the Democratic Party was a lot more..."diverse" than it once was. It had many liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Here I emphasize "conservatives" because there were many democratic politicians who were as conservative as today's Republicans.Strom Thurmond is one example. Back in the day when "conservative democrat" was a very commonly heard term, the South was dominated by the Democratic Party, and I mean dominated. The presidential election of 1940 illustrates this fact. This was back when FDR was president. Notice how blue the south is. It was once called the Solid South because of the Democratic Party's political stronghold on the region. The reason the South no longer votes democratic is that the party began to inadvertently purge itself of its racist members. This process began when Hubert Humphrey, a notable liberal spoke at the 1948 Democratic National Convention, shunning the notion of "state's rights" and advocating an end to segregation and institutionalized racism.

Needless to say, it did not go over well with southern Democrats. They slowly began leaving the party over a period of two decades until their departure accelerated after President Johnson signed the Civil Rights act of 1964 into law. His opponent in the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater, opposed it because it was "unconstitutional"(Read: to garner support among southern democrats. It worked, to a degree). In 1969, Nixon successfully used the Southern Strategy first used by Goldwater to win the presidency. It was perfected by Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater(A Republican strategist and consultant), and today's Republicans. Many southern Democrats switched parties, which is a testament to the efficacy of the Southern Strategy. The ones who didn't, like Robert Byrd, were still conservative and often broke party lines. They don't represent the modern Democratic Party. Any political scientist can tell you that.

Now, can you try and guess which party controls the South?

They would also be wise to let the population know that the NAACP APPROVED of Robert Byrd, saying that his views are 100% in line with the views of the NAACP... a man who in 2001 used the N word in an interview. Also, as far back as 1993, he was anti gay marriage.

lol, like the American people want a history lesson from their politicians. Many, if not most Americans can't even tell you how many amendments are in the Bill of Rights or name a supreme court justice.

all of this, and yet the man was not only tolerated, but celebrated in Democratic circles. Why? Because he was "one of us" to other Democrats.

*sigh*

This sounds a lot like an attempt not to deny the charges of racism against the Republican Party, but to claim that it exists on the other side as well, therefore making it acceptable. By the way, as I've shown before, Byrd does not represent the modern Democratic Party and has not since the 1960s-70s.

They would also do well to remind the population of the Democrats' ignoring the economy in favor of passing Obamacare, which put a damper on the economy because businesses had no idea what to expect.

Fair enough, but do you really expect Republicans to be smart enough to pull this off? I mean, really.

Of course, the number of Democratic politicians on the state level who end up in prison for corruption could be used against them as well.

I bet $10 that as many, if not more Republican politicians are in prison.

Besides, this is a terrible way to win an argument or an election for that matter. You don't impugn the integrity of a few politicians in one political party to defeat your opponent. You refute your opponent's arguments and endeavor to make your argument as effective as possible. Apparently, it seems, modern-day Republicans can't even do that.

Obama's "I'm a proponent of a single payer system" video should have been blasted loud and often, along with his voting record in the Illinois state and US senates. But, problem is, Republicans don't fight dirty enough and they end up simply trying to win by beating down accusations while not attacking back.

Historically, a majority of Americans support single payer/universal healthcare. Also, it's no secret that the Democratic Party has had the implementation of universal health care on its agenda for decades. You'll have to try harder than that.

I'll put it this way, look at how the Democrats took Romney's time at Bain to paint him as a "corporate raider with a 22% failure rate". Romney should have turned that on them with a simple fact, "78% success rate, bitches!" then castigated Obama for being a failure of a 1st termer and threw the economy in his face, the fact that he chose his legacy over the people's needs, along with his hypocrisies on various issues, like the Patriot Act. and the whole "binders full of women" thing? Romney should have blasted all of Obama's gaffes to date to paint him to look like a fool.

Fair enough, for the most part, but Romney's gaffes were indisputably worse than any of Obama's. Romney claimed to have known NASCAR team owners, a car elevator, etc. made him come off as an out-of-touch rich guy. There's a reason that polls consistently showed that Obama was a more relatable.

It's time the GOP begins to actually grow a pair of fangs and learn how to bite back and stop worrying so much about how the opponents portray them, because they already know its going to be negative, and the more they try to bat down the Democrats' accusations and name calling, the more they embolden their opponent to become even more fierce.

Ugh.

You make it sound like the GOP is some helpless political party that's just trying to win and is being mercilessly crushed by this near-omnipotent Democratic Party or something. The reality is that the GOP has been on the offensive for decades now. They control a majority of state governorships, state legislatures, and the House of Representatives. Despite not winning the last five out of six presidential elections decisively, they've managed to implement their agenda with frightening efficacy. Abortions are more difficult to obtain than ever in most red states, the teaching of science is perpetually being undermined, the forces of privatization have not stopped their march, and they've managed to make Congress more unproductive than ever.

You should stop listening to conservative media and talking points that suggest that the GOP is impotent and needs more power because that claim is simply not consistent with the reality of the political situation in this country.

At 11/28/13 03:28 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

But what all that worth when they could be giving huge tax breaks to rich people and corporations? The 'Murrican way, fuck yeah!

Fact: Reagan's tax cuts prevented WWIII.

At 11/28/13 03:05 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/28/13 02:56 AM, Light wrote:

Businesses don't hand out lots of money to poor people and completely subsidize their education from kindergarten to college.

This is true, but businesses to donate to charity. Also, School is an investment. A more intelligent population makes for a better work force, which in turn, means more tax revenue.

Does this mean you support increased spending on education? It certainly sounds like that to me.

It would seem from this post that you'd support, or at the very least, refrain from opposing socialist programs in the U.S. if our government was just like Norway's, controlling large sectors of the economy. Is this correct?

Nice attempt to segue that into trying to frame me as a liberal.

I couldn't care less about whatever you think I was trying to do. I was genuinely curious as to what you meant in your earlier post. I thought there was some ambiguity there.

Besides, liberals ≠ socialists. One supports complete government control over many sectors of the economy. The other doesn't.

It's like saying that libertarians = anarchists. It doesn't make much sense.

I WOULD support it, but the way the American government handles things, we'd end up as a 3rd world country in 20 years if we let the government control large sections of the economy.

When has a developed country ever become a third-world country because it embraced socialism? I'd really like to know.

Also, I can't help but wonder how Norway will handle things once their oil runs out. Any nation that survives on oil revenue will eventually be in trouble.

I suppose. Norway is probably trying to find more sustainable sources of revenue; it's probably a serious political issue there

At 11/27/13 04:30 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/27/13 03:49 AM, Light wrote:

Norway is a pretty socialistic country that is also fairly capitalistic. The state controls large sectors of the economy and isn't stingy at all with its welfare programs.

It's a creditor nation, not a debtor nation. It has no debt to speak of. Explain that.

it runs its government like a business, which is good.

Businesses don't hand out lots of money to poor people and completely subsidize their education from kindergarten to college.

It would seem from this post that you'd support, or at the very least, refrain from opposing socialist programs in the U.S. if our government was just like Norway's, controlling large sectors of the economy. Is this correct?

At 11/27/13 11:10 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
As a person with a genetic (or so they think) disorder, I don't like the idea of being erased for a disability that, all in all, really isn't that debilitating.

This isn't an anti-abortion stance, as I'm pro-choice. I just don't like the idea of discounting a person's chances before they've even had one.

Fair enough.

At 11/27/13 03:13 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/27/13 12:18 AM, Feoric wrote:

Your counterpoint to Sweden is Greece?

How do you think Greece got into the situation it got itself into in the first place? Massive deficit spending, overly generous entitlement programs that rewarded laziness, and of course, plenty of corruption.

Norway is a pretty socialistic country that is also fairly capitalistic. The state controls large sectors of the economy and isn't stingy at all with its welfare programs.

It's a creditor nation, not a debtor nation. It has no debt to speak of. Explain that.

At 11/27/13 12:10 AM, Light wrote:

At 11/26/13 07:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Shit, if mere down syndrome is a serious genetic defect, what the hell else will be included?

Anything that is similarly detrimental and burdensome to Down Syndrome.

*As Down Syndrome.

Meant to say that.

Anyway, Camaro, it sounds like your argument is predicated on a slippery slope. It's not necessarily invalid if you demonstrate why we shouldn't allow abortions for expectant mothers of fetuses with developmental problems. What is your reasoning?

At 11/26/13 07:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Shit, if mere down syndrome is a serious genetic defect, what the hell else will be included?

Anything that is similarly detrimental and burdensome to Down Syndrome.

I can understand for severe, and I mean SEVERE, defects, ones that would lead to a short life filled with only pain (such as being born with organs on the outside, Tasak's (sp?) and alike, but a mere developmental disability? That's taking a trip down a VERY dangerous road.

I don't see the ethical problem that you seem to. Just what would happen in the future if we allow these kinds of abortions(Hint: We already do and have done for decades now.)?

I've always been pro-choice. I'm pro-choice because I believe reason dictates that nonpersons don't have rights of any kind. Here, I define a person as a "a being that is at least somewhat rational, meaning that it has mental faculties and can reason to at least some degree. This being must also be self-aware(Conscious, essentially) and should be capable of experiencing pleasurable and painful sensations."

This is, I believe, a common sense definition of personhood. Unfortunately for pro-life advocates, this doesn't apply to fetuses; the scientific community doesn't believe fetuses feel pain until their 24th~28th week or something. They don't have much of a brain in the first trimester, so they are not self-aware either. In general, it seems, fetuses do not fit the definition of personhood until the second or third trimester. Some pro-life advocates think that a fertilized egg should be considered a human and all humans are persons. But that's ridiculous. That's somewhat like saying all eggs are chickens, or all acorns are trees. It's an error in reasoning. It may have human genes, and it *may* become a person, but that doesn't mean it *is* a person. A fertilized egg can't do anything a person can do or feel what they can feel. Frankly, there's not much difference between a first trimester fetus and a fertilized egg. They're both nonpersons.

Now, if it can be conclusively determined that a second/third semester fetus can feel pain and conscious, then it should not be aborted unless it is to protect the life of the mother, or in cases of rape, incest, or if the fetus has been found to possess serious genetic defects, such as Down Syndrome.

At 11/26/13 12:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/26/13 12:12 PM, DOGOGBYN wrote: Inb4 atheists can't deal with it.

Checkmate Atheists.

Aw, dang. :''''''''(

At 11/25/13 12:24 AM, Feoric wrote:

Originally, the The House Select Committee on Assassinations was preparing to release their report which concluded that Oswald acted alone. The wrinkle that came about is somebody constructed an analysis of an audio recording from an open police radio that was supposedly close to the assassination. The analysis concluded that one or more of the shots had come from somewhere other than the School Book Depository. The Committee reversed their findings and the rest is history.

However, what you don't hear about is the fact that it turned out the cop who'd left his radio open couldn't have possibly been anywhere where they said he was, and the science behind the audio analysis is controversial at best.

Damn you and your knowledge, lol.

Well, I guess Oswald did act alone. The Warren commission is still sloppy, but in light of the information you've presented, I guess I'll just have to accept that JFK got his head blown off by a communist weirdo.

At 11/25/13 06:28 AM, Raab wrote: Is it possible to hold in a shit for so long that it causes some sort of medical issue or complication?

Yes, and I'm living proof of that.

I went to the hospital two years ago because I felt sharp abdominal pains that wouldn't cease—it felt like someone was carving my insides with a knife. I had a CAT scan performed on me which found that I was..........severely constipated.

Ended up taking a lot of laxatives to clear the shit out(pun completely intended). Three days later, I was good as new.

Presumably, if I didn't go to the hospital, some serious shit(lololooll pun intended 100%) would've happened to my insides.

At 11/24/13 02:09 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 11/24/13 02:07 AM, Luer wrote:

At 11/24/13 01:33 AM, Natick wrote:

At 11/24/13 01:28 AM, Light wrote:

When will people understand that you can hate the institutions of a nation without hating said nation

When a nation perpetually fails to eradicate corruption in its institutions, I'd say it's justified to hate both.

But hey feel free to disagree.

At 11/24/13 01:42 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 11/24/13 01:28 AM, Light wrote: I fucking hate this country.

Would you please switch from Philosophy to Law and go fix this broken-beyond-belief justice system.

I don't hate the country so much as to do anything about it. :P

I fucking hate this country.

In the world of superghandi64, everything is ironic for some reason.

At 11/22/13 08:23 PM, AxTekk wrote:

That's reaaaaally freaking interesting. Top tier post broski

Thanks. I hope you enjoy the information in the article.

Most people don't know this, but the U.S. government actually determined that the Warren Commission was seriously flawed. The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations determined in 1979 that President John F. Kennedy was almost certainly killed as the result of a conspiracy. However, it's important to note that their findings did not mention anything about the CIA, FBI, the Soviet Union, Cuba, the Illuminati, or the mafia being involved in this plot to assassinate the president. This conclusion directly contradicts that reached by the Warren Commission in 1964.

Many people have criticized the way in which this conclusion was reached over the years; these criticisms are described in the article I linked to in detail.

But for what it's worth, it seems to be the official position of the U.S. government that President Kennedy died at the hands of two or more conspirators, as the findings of this committee have not been contradicted by any subsequent government research.

Ejit? Moar liek E-SHIT AMIRITE? LOLOLOLOLOLO