|
Gourd of Taste posted:This is the help each other debate thread, not the tell each other terms to absently google thread. Please post some reading or a more coherent explanation of what you're saying or both. That doesn't mean I always have online sources. However, I really doubt he was seriously asking. We've discussed the connection in this very thread and explained it. Searching for any of the things mentioned in this discussion should be more than enough given how much has been written about the effects of Cronyism on unions. Parallel Paraplegic posted:I googled "stealth deregulation of unions" that and got links to some bitchin' Yu-Gi-Oh sites, thanks! Did you read them?
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Judakel posted:That doesn't mean I always have online sources. However, I really doubt he was seriously asking. We've discussed the connection in this very thread and explained it. Searching for any of the things mentioned in this discussion should be more than enough given how much has been written about the effects of Cronyism on unions.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
Judakel posted:I don't think you understood anything I said. When someone is clearly negligent, the problem does not come from unions trying to protect that man's job. The problem comes from them succeeding in doing so. That is a function of corruption, not the proper leverage unions are supposed to achieve. It really isn't, though. Unions are good at protecting these lovely persons, who they are legally obligated to protect, because it is notoriously hard for employers to prove that their employee's behavior constitutes a breach of contract and therefore makes them eligible for dismissal. This is actually a good thing. It makes it harder for employers to summarily fire employees who may be perfectly good at their job, amicable, etc., but who've pissed off their boss for this or that petty reason. What you are seeing is not the result of corruption but the confluence of two separate institutional facts, one I consider a good thing and the other I consider a not so good thing. On the one hand you've got Taft-Hartley, which requires unions to do their utmost to represent their clients (union members) in cases against their employer. This requirement means that the union is open to legal action if they don't expend a fair amount of resources protecting their members--even the ones who may be incompetent dicks. On the other hand is the balance of power between employer and employee with regard to hiring and firing. There are different kinds of institutional frameworks in play here: you've got at-will employment, Right to Work legislation, "fair share" states, and the true blue closed shop states where a unionized shop floor means you're a member of the union and you pay your dues, period. It should be pretty obvious along this spectrum which arrangements favor whom. At-will employment empowers employers to fire someone for looking at them funny. Right to Work legislation creates a huge free rider problem for unions. "Fair share" arrangements and union shops on the whole benefit unions and their membership, though this end of the spectrum is considerably more diverse than the others because of the variety of unions and their various characters. Now, none of the above categories represent examples of deregulation that could empower a union. I can't think of any example in recent history in which a law opposed by labor has been repealed for the benefit of labor organizations in the United States, either as a result of their corruption or thereby ensuring their future corruption. This is not for lack of research on my part. I have a degree in American history, and labor issues are one of my primary areas of interest. I spent last summer bouncing around between sites of labor struggle in the US as part of a larger trip which included visits to the archives at the Rivers of Steel museum in Pittsburgh as well as the ILR archives at Cornell. I'm fine with you treating me and other people in this thread like idiots for not agreeing with you, but you can't fault us for not taking you seriously when you so adamantly defend your thesis while simultaneously refusing to show any kind of evidence for it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
Passive absorbtion six months out from the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. Also great painting background music- Many dozens of hours of original tv and radio broadcasts- http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidVonPein1 30 years later, many of the same journalists present in Dallas look back- http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/52566-1
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
I've gone through the last ten pages, do we have a quick write-up about Benghzi anywhere? I didnt even know it was still a talking point till I checked Facebook today. Specifically refuting the talk radio bits of the administration mishandled it and cover up and Hillarys "what difference does it make?", (though someone else pointed out that they're quoting her out of context).
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
I often hear it said among people left of Democrat that Obama is virtually the same on economic policy as Reagan and Republican supply-siders were in the '80s. I'm kind of a layman with regard to economics so could somebody give me an example of how that is the case? Besides Obamacare and its origin in the Heritage Foundation, of course. It would be nice to come back at some of my friends and relatives who believe that Obama is the most radically leftist head of state since Lenin.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
I'm looking for some studies done on guns recovered from crime scenes. I've found a few already, but most of them are published alongside explicit political positions or are very broad in their considerations- I recall seeing one that was more specifically academic, that simply identified state of origin for crime guns in, IIRC, Chicago, and something like that would be best.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
I am having trouble locating a good source for the fallacy associated with the following sentiment: 'I don't mind if the government is watching everything I do, I don't do anything wrong so it's a non issue'. I was hoping to get a good source that points out how this is rather short sighted/stupid with a better explanation than I can provide. Thanks
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
This seems a bit of a long shot, but I think I heard an NPR story about the absurdity of requiring Muslims to speak out against terror about a week ago or so. I believe it was in response to the London stabbing. Searching for the story hasn't helped me as results are just littered with "Why don't moderate Muslims speak out" type articles. While it would be good to get the NPR story, any articles/etc. on the double standard of Muslims needing to condemn terror attacks vs. any other group would be welcome.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Herv posted:I am having trouble locating a good source for the fallacy associated with the following sentiment: Well most people consider privacy to be intrinsically valuable, but if that isn't persuasive, a technical argument is that the data that is gathered can be lost and stolen http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7158688.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11374641 There's also the issue of data being sold to third parties (which is generally legislated against but still happens) or used for purposes other than stated Capt. Sticl posted:This seems a bit of a long shot, but I think I heard an NPR story about the absurdity of requiring Muslims to speak out against terror about a week ago or so. I believe it was in response to the London stabbing. Is it this http://www.npr.org/2013/04/21/178291522/danger-in-conflation-separating-islam-from-acts-of-terror
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
Herv posted:I am having trouble locating a good source for the fallacy associated with the following sentiment: I'm trying to find a good article I remember seeing linked several years ago, but in the meantime, here's a rundown of the common arguments against the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" idiocy.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
Herv posted:I am having trouble locating a good source for the fallacy associated with the following sentiment: That's not a fallacy, it's usually what they honestly believe and act by. It's like saying there's a fallacy in liking the color blue.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Thanks folks, I run into this sentiment a lot these days when talking about post 9/11 civil rights issues so everything is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:That's not a fallacy, it's usually what they honestly believe and act by. It's like saying there's a fallacy in liking the color blue. No it's a fallacy, based on human's need for privacy. As I pointed out, many times people will look for privacy despite having nothing to hide.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:No it's a fallacy, based on human's need for privacy. Many humans do not need privacy. They don't want it either.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Many humans do not need privacy. They don't want it either. I assume you're a committed nudist with no curtains who says whatever is on his/her mind at all times? Or are we talking about straw-people?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Many humans do not need privacy. They don't want it either. I mean in fairness one of Max-Neef's interaction needs is actually privacy. I'm not saying whether it's an actual need or whether 'some people' don't need it but there's definitely an argument to be made. (Past that, there's the idea of 'intimate spaces' or intimacy that get breached real hard by surveillance, and I do think that everyone needs something like that.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I assume you're a committed nudist with no curtains who says whatever is on his/her mind at all times? I didn't say I didn't, I said other people do. Stop projecting. Gourd of Taste posted:I mean in fairness one of Max-Neef's interaction needs is actually privacy. I'm not saying whether it's an actual need or whether 'some people' don't need it but there's definitely an argument to be made. (Past that, there's the idea of 'intimate spaces' or intimacy that get breached real hard by surveillance, and I do think that everyone needs something like that.) There's a lot of people who simply don't care about it, and thus you can't say they need it. The only problem is when they say "since I don't need it, clearly no one else does".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:I didn't say I didn't, I said other people do. Stop projecting. You've missed my point. I don't think people with a complete absence of a need for privacy exist. I knew you didn't identify as one; I think you've created this type of person for the purpose of argument. You can easily shut me up by proving the existence of multiple people with absolutely no need for privacy, which I don't think you can do. I suspect what you will do is find people who feel no need for certain kinds of privacy, which is problematic to the argument of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:You've missed my point. I don't think people with a complete absence of a need for privacy exist. I knew you didn't identify as one; I think you've created this type of person for the purpose of argument. It's nice that you think people don't exist, but that doesn't make it true. Tons of people literally do believe and act on the basis that they do have nothing to hide, it's simply a fact. Don't project your own want for privacy as being a universal human trait.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:You've missed my point. I don't think people with a complete absence of a need for privacy exist. I knew you didn't identify as one; I think you've created this type of person for the purpose of argument. This is really just moving the goal posts if somebody thinks it's okay for government agencies to be able to wiretap/search your home, person or car without a warrant which is generally what these people argue. I think it's pretty obvious Gentoo wasn't referring to nudists who have their their medical records available on their website or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:It's nice that you think people don't exist, but that doesn't make it true. As I said, my argument is easily dismissed by proving the people you're talking about exist. It's OK, I'll wait. Paper_Masochist posted:This is really just moving the goal posts if somebody thinks it's okay for government agencies to be able to wiretap/search your home, person or car without a warrant which is generally what these people argue. I think it's pretty obvious Gentoo wasn't referring to nudists who have their their medical records available on their website or whatever One counter to these invasions of privacy is that the people have a right to privacy. This has a legal basis, perhaps most famously in Roe v Wade. Trying to disprove this by making up mythical people who don't care about privacy(but who actually are just OK with certain breaches of privacy) is disingenuous at best.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:There's a lot of people who simply don't care about it, and thus you can't say they need it. The only problem is when they say "since I don't need it, clearly no one else does". Well no. I'm not saying they don't need it, I'm saying that it's something that has to be substantiated one way or the other. Sociological consensus seems to be that privacy (or intimacy, which I think of as an expression of privacy? but maybe that's not accurate?) is a basic human need, so I'd want to know more about the specific people that don't need that stuff!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Gourd of Taste posted:Well no. I'm not saying they don't need it, I'm saying that it's something that has to be substantiated one way or the other. Sociological consensus seems to be that privacy (or intimacy, which I think of as an expression of privacy? but maybe that's not accurate?) is a basic human need, so I'd want to know more about the specific people that don't need that stuff! Is whether there are people who have no need for privacy whatsoever something we need to be concerned about, though? When people say "I've got nothing to hide so I don't care if the government monitors X" I doubt they have in mind for X to be "the interior of my home, with hidden cameras" or things of that sort.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:As I said, my argument is easily dismissed by proving the people you're talking about exist. You just claim that everyone who says they don't care about privacy is really lying, so really there's no way to prove it to you. You'd just claim they were mistaken. Gourd of Taste posted:Well no. I'm not saying they don't need it, I'm saying that it's something that has to be substantiated one way or the other. Sociological consensus seems to be that privacy (or intimacy, which I think of as an expression of privacy? but maybe that's not accurate?) is a basic human need, so I'd want to know more about the specific people that don't need that stuff! Right to privacy is considered a basic human need because a whole lot of people do need and want it. We also consider it a basic human need to be able to socialize with others, but that doesn't stop there from being some people who reject all the company of others.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
I don't really see any fallacy in the statement "I don't mind if the government is watching everything I do, I don't do anything wrong so it's a non issue" as long as they are applying it to themselves. It's also reasonable to assume that they don't mean something extreme like complete loss of privacy (cameras in showers). Going into the side argument of if everyone needs privacy or not seems a little counterproductive to me and ultimately impossible to prove. Instead, I would just tell those who tell you they don't mind increased government surveillance that loss of privacy may set a dangerous precedent that infringes on the privacy of those who do care much more about their privacy.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You just claim that everyone who says they don't care about privacy is really lying, so really there's no way to prove it to you. You'd just claim they were mistaken. Actually I claimed that I don't believe a people with a total lack of concern for privacy exist. I'm not saying that they are lying, I'm saying that you are, and showing that your goalposts are on wheels because I'm pretty sure you're simply saying that there exist people OK with invasions of privacy, which I agree there are. I'm not surprised you won't be able to prove your argument...it's a bad argument. I think I've demonstrated that pretty well. quote:Right to privacy is considered a basic human need because a whole lot of people do need and want it. We also consider it a basic human need to be able to socialize with others, but that doesn't stop there from being some people who reject all the company of others. Even if such people exist, it's fundamentally irrelevant when we're talking about privacy in a legal sense. The Biggest Jerk posted:I don't really see any fallacy in the statement "I don't mind if the government is watching everything I do, I don't do anything wrong so it's a non issue" as long as they are applying it to themselves. It's also reasonable to assume that they don't mean something extreme like complete loss of privacy (cameras in showers). Going into the side argument of if everyone needs privacy or not seems a little counterproductive to me and ultimately impossible to prove. The problem is this is used as an argument for everyone, instead of saying that giving up privacy should be voluntary.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:
Yea that was it. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Actually I claimed that I don't believe a people with a total lack of concern for privacy exist. I'm not saying that they are lying, I'm saying that you are, and showing that your goalposts are on wheels because I'm pretty sure you're simply saying that there exist people OK with invasions of privacy, which I agree there are. It is impossible to prove it to you because you have already declared that no one can really be completely unconcerned about privacy. The only person who is moving goalposts is you. You have demonstrated absolutely nothing besides "I don't believe in people not believing in privacy". Sorry that I can't link you to people I've met?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:The problem is this is used as an argument for everyone, instead of saying that giving up privacy should be voluntary. How would that work, though? The point of government intruding on privacy is not to spy on a bunch of people who volunteer to let the government watch them do innocuous things.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
The Biggest Jerk posted:I don't really see any fallacy in the statement "I don't mind if the government is watching everything I do, I don't do anything wrong so it's a non issue" as long as they are applying it to themselves. It's also reasonable to assume that they don't mean something extreme like complete loss of privacy (cameras in showers). Going into the side argument of if everyone needs privacy or not seems a little counterproductive to me and ultimately impossible to prove. There's this acute pang of frustration I get when somebody says something similar to "you have nothing to fear as far as privacy goes, if you've got nothing to hide", especially when I've given a careful, nuanced argument for privacy and just get this...notion that just broadly implies that anyone who cares about privacy is effectively a bad person with something evil to hide. I get frustrated that someone can argue so earnestly for an argument that doesn't even penetrate the issue. I guess that's politics in general in the pub-channels of life 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:How would that work, though? The point of government intruding on privacy is not to spy on a bunch of people who volunteer to let the government watch them do innocuous things. The point is you prevent the government from intruding on privacy in all cases where it's not proven necessary before the intrusion.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:It is impossible to prove it to you because you have already declared that no one can really be completely unconcerned about privacy. The only person who is moving goalposts is you. I said I don't believe you can support your assertion, and you agreed. Cool! wateroverfire posted:How would that work, though? The point of government intruding on privacy is not to spy on a bunch of people who volunteer to let the government watch them do innocuous things. Exactly my point. edit: Love it when people make my arguments for me.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I said I don't believe you can support your assertion, and you agreed. Cool! No, you just refuse to accept it. I've met a couple people like that, but I can't exactly link you to them IRL because that's not how the internet functions.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:No, you just refuse to accept it. I've met a couple people like that, but I can't exactly link you to them IRL because that's not how the internet functions. Do I really have to explain to you how unsupported anecdotes add little to a debate? Well, this is the "helping D&D debate" thread, so I suppose it's appropriate: When you try to support a debate position with anecdotes, you're not doing much to convince your opponent without any statistical or evidentiary support, because your opponent can simply make up their own anecdotes. As an example, I could say that I know lots of black people who want to be discriminated against, and use that as a support of a racist position. Sorry I can't link you to them, cause that's not how the internet functions. I don't really care what your friends SAY, as they're not here to explain and you're an unreliable witness. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but you've done little to support your assertions. Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 21:32 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Do I really have to explain to you how unsupported anecdotes add little to a debate? You're declaring that nobody actually doesn't care about privacy. The fact that at least one person in the world doesn't care proves you wrong directly. Do you want one of their phone numbers or something? Zeitgueist posted:As an example, I could say that I know lots of black people who want to be discriminated against, and use that as a support of a racist position. That's utterly irrelevant though. What you could do with that is say "some black people want to be discriminated against" which is irrelevant to "should we discriminate against all the black people".
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You're declaring that nobody actually doesn't care about privacy. The fact that at least one person in the world doesn't care proves you wrong directly. Do you want one of their phone numbers or something? You're the one who claimed it's not a need because you knew people who said they didn't care. I said I didn't believe you can support that, and indeed you can't. At best you're making claims that you got a friend who can support your argument, which is pretty much crap. quote:That's utterly irrelevant though. What you could do with that is say "some black people want to be discriminated against" which is irrelevant to "should we discriminate against all the black people". Agreed, your assertions regarding privacy are utterly irrelevant. Which is something I've already said. edit: Listen, if you're going to make argument and then say you can back it up, and then say you can't back it up....at least admit you can't back it up. You might still be right, but you've already conceeded you won't can't prove you're right, regardless of whether you are or not, and even if you did, it would be irrelevent. 
Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 21:52 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:You're the one who claimed it's not a need because you knew people who said they didn't care. Yes its not a universal human need because some humans don't need it... it's pretty simple. You're factually wrong to say absolutely everyone needs to have privacy. Which is a completely separate thing from, say, "government policy should provide privacy to no one because some people don't need it" Zeitgueist posted:
I'm already proved right by the fact that at least one person in the world rejects privacy and he seems to be doing pretty OK. Most people would consider it pretty uncontroversial that some people don't need or want the same things as everyone else. This all started with you claiming that people are committing a fallacy when they say they really do think and believe they have nothing to hide. Which you still haven't justified, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Exactly my point. I'm not following you. What I had in mind is that the people the government really wants to monitor (because they're doing things that are illegal, presumably) are not going to volunteer for monitoring. The people who would volunteer would by and large not be worth survailing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:32 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:This all started with you claiming that people are committing a fallacy when they say they really do think and believe they have nothing to hide. Which you still haven't justified, of course. For what it's worth, I was asking more about the conscious decision to state that you aren't concerned with your civil rights because you are not affected by the infringement in question. (e.g. full surveillance on 'Y' demographic) Really I was looking for a better version of the 'And then they came for me, and there was no one left to defend me' line of argument. I run into folks of all ages that have no problem forfeiting due process and fourth amendment rights, when it suits them (americans classified as terrorists, boston bomber), but I doubt they would be so welcoming when it targets them personally. I didn't want to get hung up on details (true fallacy definition vs none) but more to the point of providing a compelling argument for the preservation civil rights and how the fourth is getting bypassed in some situations, and how these folks should give a gently caress about it. Thanks
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 22:49
|
|