antibiotic resistance

POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Saturday, July 24, 2021 03:15
VIEWED: 12498
PAGE 1 of 1

1KIKI

Saturday, September 16, 2017 11:00 AM

WISHIMAY

Saturday, September 16, 2017 12:00 PM

Why are you so worried about it?

Anti-biotic resistance taking out a large portion of humanity is like...last.. on my list of things to worry about. We've got a few new weapons against it, including -oddly enough- panda blood. Science will save us, even if it is eventually. Many people will have natural immunities to even the worst bugs. Humans will go on, unfortunately...

I loooove anti-biotics. I think I've taken every one of them ever made.

Three in the last six months alone.

I'm up to like 40 times now... They're the only reason I'm still breathing.

1KIKI

Saturday, September 16, 2017 12:36 PM

Keep loving your antibiotics. I hope they keep loving you back. But if they should stop, I probably won't have a ton of sympathy.

As for my interest, it's professional. And social. I find it fascinating that capitalism and 'the marketplace' gave us the problem, and can't seem to come up with a solution --- without millions in government research grants, that is. And personal. I know people who died of MRSA pneumonia.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

WISHIMAY

Sunday, September 17, 2017 6:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I probably won't have a ton of sympathy.

I know people who died of MRSA pneumonia.

Ok. Good to know you are against people trying to stay alive after they develop horrible disorders. Guess we should just shoot everyone who isn't perfect. Or give them antibiotics, since that'll kill them quick, right?

If the people you knew had died from regular old pneumonia, would you be fixated on that? Were the people that died older or with compromised immune systems?? If so, there's a good chance SOMETHING would have gotten them anyway.

I mean, I'm sorry for your loss, but how is posting about it HERE going to change anything? If it means that much to you, go lobby something...

1KIKI

Sunday, September 17, 2017 7:36 AM

What is your malfunction? How can you possibly infer I'm against people trying to stay alive by using antibiotics? Or do you automatically think every criticism under the sun is directed at you, personally?

In the US, MORE THAN HALF of all antibiotic use is for sub-therapeutic dosing in animal feed - because it makes animals grow faster.

Tell me, does that have anything to do with people trying to stay alive when they have a life-threatening bacterial infection?

Of HUMAN use, AT LEAST ONE THIRD goes to people who have viral infections or trivial, self-limiting bacterial ones that you, and your body, would be better off fighting without 'help'.

Tell me, does that have anything to do with people trying to stay alive when they have a life-threatening bacterial infection?

The problem is - meat and poultry producers want fast-growing animals. Doctors want to show their patients they're 'doing something' about their complaints, and prescribe antibiotics even when they're not appropriate. Pharmaceutical manufactures want to sell as much product as they can. Pharmacies want to fill as many prescriptions as possible. ALL THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES ARE FOR "MORE". There's no free-market, capitalistic feedback that says "STOP".

So all the players played as fast as they could, even though everyone knew that antibiotic resistance would be the inevitable outcome.

And here it is.

YOU seem to think that's not a problem. Well, ok. I hope you or your family never have to face a deadly infection with no antibiotic treatment. But if you do, well, maybe at that point you'll understand that antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. Just don't come whining to me about it.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

WISHIMAY

Sunday, September 17, 2017 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

YOU seem to think that's not a problem. Well, ok. I hope you or your family never have to face a deadly infection with no antibiotic treatment. But if you do, well, maybe at that point you'll understand that antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. Just don't come whining to me about it.

That's what I'm trying to say, I think the chances are slim to none, and none went fishing.

Why would I come to you about it anyway???

WISHIMAY

Sunday, September 17, 2017 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What is your malfunction? How can you possibly infer I'm against people trying to stay alive by using antibiotics? Or do you automatically think every criticism under the sun is directed at you, personally?

I have a connective tissue disorder which makes me prone to infection. You said if antibiotics stop working for me you won't have a lot of sympathy.

So you are, in fact, saying I would have caused my own future death by not lobbying against capitalism, which ironically is the thing that created the things that have saved me.

My problem is people whining about systems of government that work just as well as any other human system of government run by flawed humans. Ten years of you and the "Capitalism is evil" blah blah....

PEOPLE....ARE... FLAWED. YOU EXPECT THEM NOT TO BE. ARE YOU NUTS???

You will ALWAYS have flawed systems when they are run by flawed beings and human perfection is an improbability, if not impossibility.

Do you even have any idea what it takes to FEED a damn family these days? My kid's friend's dad gave up and now he pretty much feeds them ramen and bologna most of the time.

DO you know how much meat would cost if they DIDN'T use something to try to keep the produce numbers up ?

The problem isn't anti-biotics, it's that THERE ARE TOO MANY GODDAMN PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET TO FEED.

The antibiotics are the SYMPTOM. Population control IS THE CURE. Population control is the cure to pretty much everything. Education. Pollution. Poverty. Crap in the food. Once people learn to value the rare ability to create life they might learn to maintain it better. Maybe.

1KIKI

Sunday, September 17, 2017 10:46 AM

"Why would I come to you about it anyway???"
Yanno - your endless drama here, looking for anyone who'll agree that you're the heroine, everyone else is a shit-kicker, and the entire world has focused on you and done you and yours wrong.
And yes, you HAVE been done wrong - by the 1%. More accurately, by the 0.1%.
But then, so have the rest of us 99.9%. You're not special that way.

"capitalism ... ironically is the thing that created the things that have saved me"
Well, that's your first mistake. Government funded research saved your ass, not capitalism. Unless you think that capitalism is the source of all the research I linked ... in which case, you'd be wrong.

"PEOPLE....ARE... FLAWED. YOU EXPECT THEM NOT TO BE. ARE YOU NUTS??? "
Isn't that WHY we have governments? Laws? Cultures? Religions? To form people's behaviors?
GIVEN THAT - what would you rather put your trust in? The system that has screwed you at every turn? Or the one that has created the things that saved you?
And yet, here you are, arguing that the very system that puts itself between you and life-preserving medicines (think Shkreli, or EpiPen) is the one you trust. You're right. People are flawed, and you're the perfect example.

"DO you know how much meat would cost if they DIDN'T use something to try to keep the produce numbers up ? "
https://www.cattle.com/markets/barn_report.aspx?code=GX_LS161
Feeder Heifers Medium and Large 1
lowest price 650 lb, $139.60, $0.21 per lb. If only a quarter of a cow is usable, ground beef should cost you $0.84 per lb. Who do you think is making all the money?

"The problem isn't anti-biotics, it's that THERE ARE TOO MANY GODDAMN PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET TO FEED."
That's what's called a false dilemma, hon. It's not either/ or. It's both. There are too many people on the planet. And our system is geared to enable the people who will do anything to make the most money possible.
Neither one is sustainable.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 18, 2017 12:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And our system is geared to enable the people who will do anything to make the most money possible.
Neither one is sustainable.

Seems to me that they are VERY sustainable, 'cause THAT'S ALL WE GET. Good luck fixing it by posting HERE. The people with the money gots da power and they aren't giving it up. So unless you intend a bloody revolution SHUT THE HELL UP.

And on that subject, weren't YOU the one thinking your mountains of gold would save you if the economy tanked...Aren't YOU just another hypocrite? DO you plan on handing it over to the starving if your ideals come true?? HELL NO.

Self-preservation runs this planet and always will. Nothing ELSE is sustainable.

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 2:36 AM

Quote:
There are too many people on the planet. And our system is geared to enable the people who will do anything to make the most money possible.
Neither one is sustainable.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Seems to me that they are VERY sustainable, 'cause THAT'S ALL WE GET.

Said the lemming running toward the cliff.
And let me add even IF it's all we get (and that's debatable), that doesn't change the fact that that cliff edge is coming up fast, and it's not sustainable. One doesn't have anything to do with the other. That was a severe case of 'logic fail'.

Quote:
Good luck fixing it by posting HERE.

Well, this is a discussion board, so *I* thought I was discussing an issue.

Quote:
The people with the money gots da power and they aren't giving it up. So unless you intend a bloody revolution SHUT THE HELL UP.

Now you're Chairman Mao? Telling people what they can and can't bring up in public?

Quote:
And on that subject, weren't YOU the one thinking your mountains of gold would save you if the economy tanked...

Wow. You keep bringing that up, in a very 'strawman' kind of way. I've said - many times - that something is only as valuable as people think it is. Gold has no 'intrinsic' value. Neither does cash, bitcoins, land, or ... anything. Even those things that have 'use value' - air, shelter, water, food, for example - are only good in the right place at the right time. A fire to keep you warm does you no good on a scorching desert day. An endless supply of clean drinking water won't keep you from starving to death.
But you seem to be very taken with the idea of gold. That's your issue, not mine.

Quote:
Aren't YOU just another hypocrite? DO you plan on handing it over to the starving if your ideals come true?? HELL NO.

I would give up everything I have in less than a heartbeat if it would guarantee a fair world for everyone.

Quote:
Self-preservation runs this planet and always will. Nothing ELSE is sustainable.

Well then, you had better do a better job with that self-preservation. Because letting the 0.1% rob you blind isn't going to do it; making enemies when you should be cooperating with others isn't going to do it; and leaving a meaner, poorer planet for your child isn't going to do it.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 18, 2017 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I would give up everything I have in less than a heartbeat if it would guarantee a fair world for everyone.

It wouldn't.
It's not going to.
No one here is interested in being a pure socialist. Ever.

EVERYONE but YOU knows that if you were to hand out all you own that you would be stabbed in the back by the system, the people, whatever, eventually....because it isn't even REMOTELY REALISTIC. You CANNOT deprogram greed or self-preservation, even with a good brainwashing program.

THIS ISN'T THE WINDMILL YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, DON QUIXOTE.

LEARN, GODDAMN IT.

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 18, 2017 4:54 AM

I'm done. We've had this discussion several times, your "anti-biotics are the result of socialism" thing has been thoroughly debunked in the past, and you keep spouting the same tired crap.

Just like I've had the "infrared heaters are not evil conversation" twice before with 6ix, you just can't fix some things.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.WoI-GbDWvjQLDEMo5A8pPQD-D1&pid=
15.1&P=0&w=178&h=173

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 6:00 AM

"anti-biotics are the result of socialism" They are a result of societal investment. "has been thoroughly debunked in the past" Then you should have no problem debunking it now. But you can't seem to, not even a little bit.

Yanno, if you don't care to discuss something, that's fine. I have no need for your agreement. So, go flouncing out of the discussion saying "I win". That's ok.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 6:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
DO you plan on handing it over to the starving if your ideals come true?? HELL NO.

This was your question. It's very hypothetical. I ANSWERED THE QUESTION EXACTLY AS ASKED. But NOW you're ragging on me for not addressing the question you DIDN'T ask?
OK. I'm just going to point out you look kinda stupid.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
It wouldn't.
It's not going to.
No one here is interested in being a pure socialist. Ever.
EVERYONE but YOU knows that if you were to hand out all you own that you would be stabbed in the back by the system, the people, whatever, eventually....because it isn't even REMOTELY REALISTIC. You CANNOT deprogram greed or self-preservation, even with a good brainwashing program.
THIS ISN'T THE WINDMILL YOU ARE LOOKING FOR, DON QUIXOTE.
LEARN, GODDAMN IT.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 6:24 AM

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, September 18, 2017 7:02 AM

Shouldn't a couple of feminists like you two be saving all of that energy for fighting the big bad patriarchy?

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 7:09 AM

You seem to be under the impression women are the cause of all bad things.

Are you?

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 18, 2017 8:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Shouldn't a couple of feminists like you two be saving all of that energy for fighting the big bad patriarchy?

NO, because I've also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would take more energy than the whole of womenkind to militantly combat the stupidity that exists in a patriarchal system.

Yet another thing that isn't worth it. Because... PEOPLE.

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 9:48 AM

Well, drat. I posted because this is an interesting topic to me. I was hoping to just have some conversation about it. Instead, I got everything but.

Peace out.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, September 18, 2017 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You seem to be under the impression women are the cause of all bad things.

Are you?

Nah... That would be pretty stupid to say. We haven't had a female president to screw things up yet, although I'm sure she will when it happens. So far though, the men have been doing quite a fine job on their own in that department.

I was just making an observation about the two of you. This thread does an excellent job illustrating your natural behavior towards everyone else. The both of you are the most argumentative people on this board by a factor of 10, and neither of you will ever back down from an argument once you've dug your heels in.

I've known Signy since I've signed up here, and I don't think I've ever had a single argument with her. I'm sure in all that time we must have disagreed about something, but I can't recall ever having an argument.

OONJ and Brenda just seem like pretty wonderful people all around...

No... Women aren't the problem, just because you both happen to be one. The common denominator here that I see is Feminism. Feminists are just annoying people. Their very existence is superfluous today, and since they have nothing real to fight against anymore they just fight about everything and blame men when they don't get their way.

Don't stop the argument Kiki. I was finding this thread pretty entertaining.

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 18, 2017 9:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

I've known Signy since I've signed up here, and I don't think I've ever had a single argument with her. I'm sure in all that time we must have disagreed about something, but I can't recall ever having an argument.

OONJ and Brenda just seem like pretty wonderful people all around.

You aren't capable of having a thought that is important enough to argue with. You don't know anything about anything that isn't about YOU. You don't even seem to get that for the past five years EVERYONE has been avoiding you because you were just another drunken idiot.
Not-surprisingly, the only thing you can contribute to this thread or any other is to act like Jerry Springer, or blather on about your own mediocre life.

Go get a life and maybe someone will want to talk to you about it.

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 18, 2017 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Their very existence is superfluous today

The fact you think someone else's life is superfluous is THE VERY DEFINITION OF HYPOCRACY.

I'd take a boatload of feminists, including kiki, over just ONE of you.
At least, as incredibly misguided as she is... she means well, whereas YOU DON'T MEAN ANYTHING.

I'd take a dozen Millenials glued to their phones over you.

I think I'd even invite a carload of Mormons in then spend ten minutes talking to YOU.

For shit's sake, go learn to do something other than be a misogynist...

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 10:58 PM

Quote:
neither of you will ever back down from an argument once you've dug your heels in

I'm OK with being proven wrong. But someone has to come up with facts, links, and a better argument to do it. Wishi didn't come up with anything except easily disproved claims, and you didn't come up with anything except personal snark.
You may find it hard to believe that anyone here has genuine expertise - or even that irl they know more than you. But this is one of my areas of knowledge. So instead of sniping about feminism, maybe you could consider learning something about a topic you don't know much about, from someone who knows more than you.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, September 18, 2017 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
neither of you will ever back down from an argument once you've dug your heels in
I'm OK with being proven wrong. But someone has to come up with facts, links, and a better argument to do it. Wishi didn't come up with anything except easily disproved claims, and you didn't come up with anything except personal snark.
You may find it hard to believe that anyone here has genuine expertise - or even that irl they know more than you. But this is one of my areas of knowledge. So instead of sniping about feminism, maybe you could consider learning something about a topic you don't know much about, from someone who knows more than you.

Fair enough. I'm sure you know a lot more about it than I do. Great to hear that there are strides being made to prolong the Human Virus on the planet. :)

You don't really argue points though. After a post or two you devolve into personal attacks, just as Wishy does. You're obviously a very intelligent and educated person, but in the end you look exactly the same as Wishy does when she throws her temper tantrums and starts spewing her hate.

I'm just ignoring Wishy because everything she types deserves to be ignored.

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 11:12 PM

I REPLY to personal attacks with personal attacks. Signy tries really hard not to do that, but lets a lot of undeserved personal abuse go by in the process. I'm not as patient.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, September 18, 2017 11:19 PM

Maybe if I'll have time I'll do some digging. I'm quite certain I can find a thread or two where you started the personal attacks with me. I'm not going to speak for other people.

1KIKI

Monday, September 18, 2017 11:23 PM

Great. Not ironic with rolled eyes, either.

Send a pm to my email when you post. I'm only here now and again. If your post rolls down off the homepage, I might not see it.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, September 19, 2017 8:14 AM

Here you go:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61599&p=3

Quote:
You're free to have whatever opinion you want, but I reject the notion that I don't deserve what I have today.

-6

Quote:
You don't. Not in a system that rewards things like sex, skin color, and height.

-1Kiki

Quote:
Or that I only have what I own today simply because of some systemic oppression of non-whites or women.

-6

Quote:
You do.

You're a raving egomaniac that has soured into Social Darwinism, racism and sexism. I'm just waiting for you to officially become a Nazi and promote the cause of eliminating undesirables. You already agree with it, you just don't want to make the effort - at the moment.

-1Kiki

Things devolved quickly from there.

Taking away the smart decisions I've made with my money (which is an average income of around $12,000/yr. since I began working) and saying that the only reason I am where I am today is because I'm a white male is a personal attack, albeit passive aggressive.

Raving Egomaniac?

Calling me a Nazi before Reaverfan even did?

If you read the conversation before those responses from you there wasn't any arguing or personal attacks that led to that.

Just sayin'

-------------------

PM Sent.

1KIKI

Tuesday, September 19, 2017 10:02 AM

The hype:

Quote:
There is no "overpayment" in EIC. These women aren't breaking any tax laws. It wasn't all Obama either. The Feminists want to bitch about the gender wage gap, but with nearly 50% of Americans making below poverty almost half of American Women get paid more than men for the same job because of the EIC.

The reality:

Quote:

To qualify for and claim the Earned Income Credit you must:

Have earned income; and
Have been a U.S. citizen or resident alien for the entire tax year; and
Have a valid Social Security number (not an ITIN) for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and any qualifying children on your return; and
Not have investment income exceeding $3,400; and
Not be filing a Form 2555 or 2555-EZ; and
File a return with the Single, Married Filing Jointly, Head of Household, or Qualifying Widower filing status, even if you're not required to file a return.

In addition, both your earned income and Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) may not exceed:

$14,880 if you're not claiming a qualifying child ($20,430 if filing jointly);
$39,296 if you're claiming 1 qualifying child ($44,846 if filing jointly);
$44,648 if you're claiming 2 qualifying children ($50,198 if filing jointly);
$47,955 if you're claiming 3+ qualifying children ($53,505 if filing jointly).

One more thing – if you're not claiming a qualifying child:

You (or your jointly filing spouse) must have been born on or after January 1, 1951; and
You (or your jointly filing spouse) must have been born on or before December 31, 1991; and
You (and your jointly filing spouse) cannot be claimed as a qualifying child or dependent on anyone else's return.

There's nothing there about being female. But I guess we don't need no stinkin' facts!

Quote:
(re EIC) it wasn't Obama's idea although he happily went along with it and touted it as good. The government as a whole for quite some time has been heading this way, but that whole thing is another discussion that involves quite a bit of MGTOW ideas that I agree with but would derail this thread. ... Stefan Moleneux and some others have some videos on the subject, particularly the idea of Government supplying women with many alternative means for sustenance for themselves and their children without the need for a male to be in the picture to provide for them.

The nerve of those women, not being dependent on men.
Then you strawman my post:

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The employment problems in the US don't look to be about women in the workforce.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I didn't say they were.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:Then maybe you shouldn't have made such a point of it?

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I'm not saying that women should stay in the kitchen and make babies. I'm just stating the harsh reality that I never hear anybody talking about. The amount of illegal Mexicans or H1B visas out there is a drop in the bucket compared to females entering the work force when it came to job competition.

And when you can't refute it, you resort to snark:

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
lol... You would basically be Second if you agreed on politics.

And when I point out the logic-fail in your argument

Quote:
YOUR solution would lead too 77% unemployment (the 27% who are already not participating, though they can, plus the 50% you want to leave work).
Is that what you're going for?

AND it would double the workload of those who are left employed.
Is that what you're going for?

That's how your simple math works out.
Is that what you're going for?

once again you duck with a dismissive response.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
lol

Here you display a basic misunderstanding of, and hostility towards, feminism:

Quote:
feminism had a lot more to do with it. Anything you c

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:21 PM

Well, I tried.

I'd love to hear what other people think about this one.

I didn't personally attack you first, was my point. You did.

EDIT:

BTW... you do realize that you seem to be perfectly okay with Identity Politics when it suits you, don't you?

1KIKI

Tuesday, September 19, 2017 1:09 PM

Social Darwinism, racism and sexism - that's you in all those glorious quotes.

But if you want to dispute how I characterized you, then PROVE ME WRONG. Explain how you didn't really post those things you posted, or didn't mean the words you used, or that they don't mean you are those ideas you espouse.

BTW - I'd be 'into' identity politics if I thought those things you are should have real-world consequences for you. But nowhere have I expressed that. All I did was point out that, by your own words, that's what you very evidently are.

Once again, you misrepresented me.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, September 19, 2017 7:29 PM

You called me a Nazi.

You called me a raving egomaniac.

I don't have to disprove any of those things. They were insults, they were unwarranted. I had not at all attacked you or your character before you said these things about me.

You asked for an example, and I gave you one.

You also say that nothing I do in my life matters because I have white male privlidge that takes the credit for anything good in my life.

That statement is Identity Politics. The very fact that you call yourself a Feminist is textbook Identity Politics.

Call all of this whatever you will. I will be sure to point out any time in the future where you attack others first. I'm certain this won't be the last time you've done it.

I thought maybe you would have taken a good look in the mirror when you had it pointed out to you.

1KIKI

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 3:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
You called me a Nazi.

No, I didn't.

Quote:
You're a raving egomaniac that has soured into Social Darwinism, racism and sexism.

Quote:
You called me a raving egomaniac.

True.

Quote:
They were insults, they were unwarranted.

After you lied about what *I* had posted, lied about the facts, lied about what you'd already posted, insulted whole categories of people (women, and especially women who work who work, and by extension - me), and decided that the poor (mostly non-whites) were too unfit to be kept alive, dodged the facts you couldn't address, and did everything in your power to be dishonest.

Quote:
my EIC will only be around $200/yr, but many of the women I worked with at my last job were getting between $400-$600/month in food stamps and $6,000-$12,000/yr in EIC (you forgot they're supporting CHILDREN, DOOD) ... The Feminists want to bitch about the gender wage gap, but with nearly 50% of Americans making below poverty almost half of American Women get paid more than men for the same job because of the EIC (what about those CHILDREN, DOOD?) ... No professionals should have unions (because instead of raising poor people up we need to devalue others) ... the idea of Government supplying women with many alternative means for sustenance for themselves and their children without the need for a male to be in the picture to provide for them (yes. god forbid women have independent lives) ... Jesus Christ...Whatever second ... lol... You would basically be Second if you agreed on politics ...You also say that nothing I do in my life matters because I have white male privlidge that takes the credit for anything good in my life. (I was responding to what you posted - that you DESERVE what you have today.) I reject the notion that I don't deserve what I have today. (DOOD - you may deserve SOME things - but not EVERYTHING. Because some advantages you got for free - by being a white male.) I thought maybe you would have taken a good look in the mirror when you had it pointed out to you. ... lol (No answer to simple questions about the simple math in your own post. I got that.) ... I don't believe what they teach in school or what they say on the news (which is probably your excuse for never posting facts or doing any research - that would hamper the bullshit) ... Anything you can do, I can do better.... right? ... Let the adults talk. Don't you have another thread or three that you're helping destroy? ... generations of government subsidized Dysgenics, where often the stupidest, weakest and least able to fend for themselves are the ones that are rewarded for having children ... those who didn't do anything were not provided for by the government then Darwinism would take root and only the smartest and toughest would make it and population control would happen under natural selection - a few generations from now would see a Human Race of the highest caliber and most driven united people ever known ... I will not respond again to you here and allow you to derail and destroy another topic ... Logic and reason are hard things to deal with having when most people you talk to don't measure up...when it comes to issues such as this, the liberals are on the short end of that stick because the dumbest people at the bottom of the food chain tend to congregate there ... White people in Westernized society have low birth rates. There is not low birth rates in any other demographic in Westernized societies. ... the most poor anywhere are the ones least equipped to survive on their own. There are always exceptions to the rule, but let's not start going all SJW and pretending that this isn't generally the truth. ... Stupid and weak people are poor because they are weak and stupid. ... That's just called survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom where there is no welfare these people would not procreate because they would have already been eaten. ... I reject the notion that...I only have what I ow

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6STRINGJOKER

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:08 AM

Wow. You've got problems, lady.

Continue arguing with yourself about this one.

I'll point out to you in the future when you attack people unprovoked.

1KIKI

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:14 AM

And I'll point out your dishonesties, your snark, your insults, your dismissals, your lack of facts, your inability to address facts, your dismissal of facts, and your demeaning and insulting whole categories of people.

Sound like a deal?

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

WISHIMAY

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:22 AM

6ix...you walk into a room and say something you know is gonna piss people off and then when you get yelled at for saying something stupid you play victim.

Seriously, do you need a man to ride up on a white horse and save you, Pollyanna?

Do you have some sort of victim fetish?

And Kiki, learn when you're being trolled.

6STRINGJOKER

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:16 AM

lol. Dishonesty? Show me where I lied here, ever. You sound like G or T when you say that.

I'll admit to the snark, and the occasional insult.

The rest, coming from you, is subjective bullshit that I won't take credit for.

Once again, Wishy is being ignored. :)

WISHIMAY

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 12:36 PM

At least I haven't been ignored for five years. :P

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 3:41 PM

I thought this was a thread on antibiotic resistance. How wrong I was!

KIKI, SIX ... FWIW

Quote:
my EIC will only be around $200/yr, but many of the women I worked with at my last job were getting between $400-$600/month in food stamps and $6,000-$12,000/yr in EIC - SIX

you forgot they're supporting CHILDREN, DOOD - KIKI

Nowhere in EIC does it say that one must be a woman to get EIC for supporting children. SIX, if you want equal EIC, adopt a crap-ton of kids. EIC will be YOURS! And you'll find out that EIC doesn't make up for the expense and involvement of raising children. If you do it right, raising children is WORK.

Quote:
... The Feminists want to bitch about the gender wage gap, but with nearly 50% of Americans making below poverty almost half of American Women get paid more than men for the same job because of the EIC ... SIX

what about those CHILDREN, DOOD? - KIKI

Again, there is nothing in EIC that says you have to be female to get it. Here's the thing: MEN supply half of the genes of those children. Why are THEY not stepping up to the plate to raise the children that they fathered?

Quote:
... No professionals should have unions - SIX
because instead of raising poor people up we need to devalue others= KIKI

SIX, I have no idea where your grotch against "professionals" came from, except that you resent anyone who went to college. "Professionals" may be a few rungs higher on the socioeconomic ladder, but THEY aren't deciding how the economy is supposed to run, either. They're as unrepresented as you.

Quote:
the idea of Government supplying women with many alternative means for sustenance for themselves and their children without the need for a male to be in the picture to provide for them - SIX
yes. god forbid women have independent lives - KIKI

This wouldn't be necessary if .... and I repeat ... men stepped up to the plate to help raise the children that they fathered. Yes, it takes two to have children, but women, by and large, are left to raise the children that they bear while men, by and large, walk away. (1) If you don't want to see women getting EIC for fatherless children, keep your pants zipped. (2) If you can't do that, use a condom, (3) and if you can't do that, be a father to your children.

Quote:
Jesus Christ...Whatever second ... lol... You would basically be Second if you agreed on politics ...You also say that nothing I do in my life matters because I have white male privlidge [sic] that takes the credit for anything good in my life. - SIX

I was responding to what you posted - that you DESERVE what you have today.- KIKI

I reject the notion that I don't deserve what I have today. - SIX

DOOD - you may deserve SOME things - but not EVERYTHING. Because some advantages you got for free - by being a white male. - KIKI

Nobody gets what they "deserve" today. NOBODY.

MOST people deserve much, much MORE, and a tiny few "deserve" so much less!

Quibbling about whether you "deserve" an extra 25% more or less, when in reality you BOTH deserve at least double whatever you're earning ... sorry, but how does that math work? This is fighting over crumbs. Yes, we should have a true meritocracy. Clearly, we don't, otherwise the top 25 tech money-grabbers wouldn't be making more than all of the kindergarten teachers COMBINED. Can we all agree that we really need to be focusing on the BIG inequalities, while committing to working out the little ones later?

Quote:
I don't believe what they teach in school or what they say on the news - SIX

which is probably your excuse for never posting facts or doing any research - that would hamper the bullshit - KIKI

... Anything you can do, I can do better.... right? ... Let the adults talk. Don't you have another thread or three that you're helping destroy? ... generations of government subsidized Dysgenics, where often the stupidest, wea

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6STRINGJOKER

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
At least I haven't been ignored for five years. :P

It was four years. But I accept that.

6STRINGJOKER

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

We're all just birdshit on the bottom of the cage.

BTW... I did keep a condom on it. Sometimes it doesn't work. I didn't get a chance to raise the child because she made up her mind to kill it.

A majority of women who are on EIC are not because of fathers who walked away. They are because their fathers are in prison, usually for trivial crimes like selling weed. Thanks, Slick Willy.

I never claimed that raising kids was an easy job or that the EIC money and other benefits goes very far. That wasn't even part of my argument.

My argument was that because they have children, they end up getting paid twice what I get paid for the exact same job. The sting of this for me personally is that I work so much harder at a job than any of my male or female peers and I was working at a company that did not reward this behavior at all on top of it.

Woe be on to you if you ever get into it with Kiki. She will confuse you by talking about so many things at once and make you say contradictory things if you're not careful. I was still somewhat recovering from a 4 year crippling addiction and my mind was a bit muddled. I wouldn't even take her bait anymore. She's an expert at arguing. Look at her. She lives for it. I think you're the only person on the board that hasn't fought with her.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:35 PM

Quote:
We're all just birdshit on the bottom of the cage. - SIGNY

BTW... I did keep a condom on it. Sometimes it doesn't work. I didn't get a chance to raise the child because she made up her mind to kill it. - SIX

Yeah, I understand that men may desire a chance at posterity via children. Despite the fact that I understand that feeling, I have a strict responsibility = authority rule on decisions like this, and since (during the nine months of pregnancy) it's women who get morning sickness, who may suffer from the negative professional or social effects of being unmarried and pregnant, and who face the physical risks of childbirth, IMHO men aren't the decision-makers in this situation.

Just OOC, if you knew that the father wasn't you, would you still feel the same? In other words, was this a desire to be a father, or a desire to nurture your genes?

Quote:
A majority of women who are on EIC are not because of fathers who walked away. They are because their fathers are in prison, usually for trivial crimes like selling weed. Thanks, Slick Willy.

I never claimed that raising kids was an easy job or that the EIC money and other benefits goes very far. That wasn't even part of my argument.

My argument was that because they have children, they end up getting paid twice what I get paid for the exact same job. The sting of this for me personally is that I work so much harder at a job than any of my male or female peers and I was working at a company that did not reward this behavior at all on top of it.- SIX

Well, you sure seem to resent the women who got it.

Our whole society and culture doesn't value raising children. There's less room for the pregnant woman in any sort of profession; ads (which tell us what's desirable) focus entirely on young individuals having a lot of fun through excess consumption ... not a baby to be seen anywhere. There is also almost no accounting for people who take care of elderly or sick family members; the people who do this life-sucking work are primarily (but not always) women. I know that with overpopulation we don't need hordes of women wanting to crank out lots of babies, but raising children, like taking care of the sick and elderly, is HARD WORK.

You hate government-mandated schooling and you resent EIC, and if there was program where people taking care of the sick and elderly would get a boost to their paychecks you'd probably hate that too. So, do you think that kind of work is necessary for society to survive If so, how do you accommodate it so that people who take care of their children and grandchildren, their sick, and their elderly, are rewarded ... or at least accommodated ... for that work?

Quote:
Woe be on to you if you ever get into it with Kiki. She will confuse you by talking about so many things at once and make you say contradictory things if you're not careful. I was still somewhat recovering from a 4 year crippling addiction and my mind was a bit muddled. I wouldn't even take her bait anymore. She's an expert at arguing. Look at her. She lives for it. I think you're the only person on the board that hasn't fought with her.

Oh, I manage to argue a lot all on my own!

Hey SIX, I may not agree with you all of the time, but I find that you're very seldom righteous. There's too much righteousness here, including me, so I'm going to try and follow your example.

*****

Back to our regularly scheduled topic.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

WISHIMAY

Wednesday, September 20, 2017 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

My argument was that because they have children, they end up getting paid twice what I get paid for the exact same job. The sting of this for me personally is that I work so much harder at a job than any of my male or female peers and I was working at a company that did not reward this behavior at all on top of it.

I'm SURE you were a saint to work with.

BTW, IF YOU HAD A FAMILY YOU WOULD GET PAID MORE THAN SINGLE MOTHERS, OR SINGLE WORKERS.

NO ONE IS KEEPING YOU DOWN.... BUT YOU.

6STRINGJOKER

Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yeah, I understand that men may desire a chance at posterity via children. Despite the fact that I understand that feeling, I have a strict responsibility = authority rule on decisions like this, and since (during the nine months of pregnancy) it's women who get morning sickness, who may suffer from the negative professional or social effects of being unmarried and pregnant, and who face the physical risks of childbirth, IMHO men aren't the decision-makers in this situation.

There should be some sort of comprimise. I know that you don't deal in absolutes either. There are half as many different situations as there are people involved in every different pregnancy, and I don't appreciate how the slant is 100% against men right now.

I would never have pushed for an abortion, because I personally believe that this is murder. That's not any sort of religion speaking, it's just my personal view on the matter. That being said, if I did push for it but she wanted to have the kid, I would be paying child support for the kid that I may or may not even get to see to this day.

Another thing I don't appreciate is when somebody says that you should keep it in your pants. Last I checked, it takes two to tango.

It's not that I don't get where you're coming from. The woman does have to deal with unwed pregnancy, interference at work or loss of a job, and all of the other things that come with the nine months. I just don't understand how this gives her 100% of control in the situation. She can decide to murder the baby or make the man pay for the next 18 years at whatever her whim is.

I don't know an ideal solution to this. I just know that this one size fits all approach is not right.

Quote:
Just OOC, if you knew that the father wasn't you, would you still feel the same? In other words, was this a desire to be a father, or a desire to nurture your genes?

That's a good question. Unfortunately, all these years later I don't think I can give you an objective answer to that. I'm a hell of a lot more jaded now than I was back then, for this and many other reasons. I did love her, or at least I think I did... But because of my beliefs about abortions I found her to be a monster after the fact. Everything happened so quickly I didn't have any time to think about any of it and after it was over I buried it for many, many years.

I'm just a different person now. I don't think I'd make a good father at all today, or even a long term mate. I love living alone. I find occasional companionship for a change of pace, but it never really lasts long. Maybe deep down I was always like this. I'd like to think that I would have made a good father back then though...

Quote:
Well, you sure seem to resent the women who got it.

I resent the fact that they got it. I don't resent them personally. The woman with the four kids was actually pretty great and had been to a few of my small parties for people from work. When I fell down the stairs and nearly broke my back and writhed in agony for about 3 days without sleep she came right over and gave me some muscle relaxants (since I wouldn't accept her offer for any pain pills).

I can't even really say that I resent the fact that they got it because I know her kids are pretty decent and she does a good job raising them on her own. Who knows what trouble they'd be getting into if they didn't have that extra money to stay afloat?

There was a lot of stuff going on in that conversation with Kiki there, and this is one of those examples where she comes at you from many different angles and makes you say things that appear to be contradictory if you aren't paying attention to the whole conversation and didn't pick up on that and read things out of context.

This whole issue was brought up about the BS "Gender Wage Gap". Obama comes out and talks about it like it's a

1KIKI

Friday, September 22, 2017 12:27 PM

Jack

Re women and children - and men - this is not a situation that can be resolved through compromise. In the face of differing opinions SOMEbody has to have the authority to make the final decision. If not the woman, the only one left is the man. What kind of society does that look like, where men make that decision for women? I can think of the perfect example - Afghanistan. (BTW, that's an example of a 'patriarchal' society. Where men make all the rules and have all choices and generally run the society.)

I've been trying to imagine what kind of solution would have assuaged your feeling of powerlessness over the abortion. Given that you two pretty obviously came from polar opposite opinions, in a debate you would not have convinced her, nor she you. That leads to the same endpoint - in the face of unalterable opposing positions SOMEbody has to make the final decision.

So, let's say your relationship was different - that you two talked with each other. What if you felt that you had been heard? Not agreed with, but heard, and understood. But in the end she did what she felt she needed to do. Would you still have felt the angst? Was the issue not that you were disagreed with, but that you were discounted? But that's not a 'society' thing, which still would have vested her with the authority to decide - that's a 'you and her' thing - it has to do with the very particular nature of your relationship. And what you resent is that because she had the authority to decide, it also gave her the opportunity to dismiss you from consideration?

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Friday, September 22, 2017 1:42 PM

She murdered my child. Society allowed it. End of story.

SIGNYM

Friday, September 22, 2017 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
She murdered my child. Society allowed it. End of story.

Murdered?

YOUR child?

What are you, like a dog-owner? Was that fetus your property? I mean, heck, you don't even go 50:50.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

6STRINGJOKER

Friday, September 22, 2017 9:26 PM

Yeah, I'm usually 50/50 on most things.

I feel very strongly about this though, because it was personal. I'm not a pro lifer because I'm not some religious nut-job, but it was my child. Why call it "our child"? To her, it wasn't. It was just an unfortunate growth, like a tumor, that simply needed to be removed.

Why should I go 50/50 in this instance. I had 0 percent say in the matter, either way. I've got to live with her whim for the rest of my life. I can only hope that her decision keeps her up at night for the rest of hers.

WISHIMAY

Friday, September 22, 2017 11:10 PM

*Snort* Yeah, you sure showed her she was better off without you.

You could've moved on and had 5 kids by now if you really wanted to, but you don't, and you don't want to. All you really want to do is whine about it and play the "I'm a victim card" for the rest of your life.

If you were even remotely honest, it isn't about the kid at ALL, it's about the fact she made the choice to cut all ties with you and leave, because you weren't worth it. That's the part that kills you.

WISHIMAY

Friday, September 22, 2017 11:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Society allowed it.

"Society" should've strapped her down to a table for 8 months, then?? Society should have forced her to risk her life? Society should have forced her to live the effects of giving birth, and to a child she would've had to take care of alone, while you boozed and played Xbox and took no responsibility for not wearing a condom?

You are a Nazi, you just can't admit it. Her quality of life is not less important than yours.

6STRINGJOKER

Saturday, September 23, 2017 2:34 AM

She wasn't trying to leave me. I think ties were cut when I had to keep myself from murdering her when she told me what she did.

My drinking was only a problem at a late stage in my life. I managed to do pretty well and have nearly 100k in the bank before I got laid off and then bought a house with it, in cash.

I was a much different person than I am now.

You should know all about that, Wishy. You used to be pretty cool and now you're a raving bitch and a lunatic.

6STRINGJOKER

Saturday, September 23, 2017 2:36 AM

If you don't mind, Kiki. I'd like to change the subject.

It's not something that I ever want to talk about with people who's company I actually enjoy, and Wishy isn't really good for my Calm right about now.

SIGNYM

Saturday, September 23, 2017 3:32 AM

So I'm going to put in my $0.02 and hopefully have the good sense to shut up afterwards.

KIKI - I think SIX is expressing a deeply emotional reaction, not a political stand. First, I have to tell you a story: I know someone who's had impulse control problems his entire life; He's been known as "Stormy ____" for as long as I can remember. He's now just a little younger than me, so he's pretty old. Thanks to his inability to control his own impulses, he's lost any number of jobs, crashed any number of cars and motorcycles, lost every friend he ever had, and was reduced to living - electricity, heat, and water-free - in the basement of an old farm building that he was going to renovate some day. Well, the property was a mess, full of old mattresses and other crap that people had dumped on the property, as well as junkers and parts that Stormy had collected. His siblings, nieces, nephews, and in-laws showed up one spring day to help him clear his property; they had rented a haulaway and borrowed a small tractor to help them drag the heavy stuff. And there was Stormy ... in tears, frantically trying to protect some small white flowers that were just beginning to bloom in the spring mud from being trampled and crushed.

Why was that?

Stormy had identified with the flowers. He cared deeply about them; they were part of him, and he couldn't bear to see them killed.

See where this is going?

It doesn't make sense, it doesn't HAVE to make sense, but I think that's what's happened with SIX.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

WISHIMAY

Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
and now you're a raving bitch and a lunatic.

I just learned to stop coddling and enabling people. May not be the nice thing, but patting someone on the head every time they say something stupid isn't doing anything for the planet.

WISHIMAY

Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thanks to his inability to control his own impulses,

And there was Stormy ... in tears,

Why was that?

Stormy had identified with the flowers. He cared deeply about them; they

Romanticize much? The flowers were just a convenient scapegoat for the grief of a failed life. Could've been anything that would have set him off.

I don't think it's the same with 6ix. I think he thinks he was cheated out of something that partially "belonged" to him. Thus all the feminist loathing. I'd bet a crisp $20 she didn't want to have kids and he thought he could make her stay by knocking her up. As much as women try to trap men with kids, men do the same damn thing...THAT'S why he hates women that make their own decisions. He couldn't force her to do what he wanted. And he even admits he wouldn't WANT a kid now, which is just twisted...

Anyone who spends their time bitching about feminists when there are much bigger baddies in the world AIN'T THAT DEEP.

1KIKI

Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:46 AM

ok

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
If you don't mind, Kiki. I'd like to change the subject.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:12 PM

Nah Wishy. You're just a bitch. I've never met somebody in my life who is so negative and judgemental of everybody but herself 100% of the time. You never have a nice thing to say about anyone, and you argue with everybody all the time. You try to infect others with your hate and goad them until they argue back with you. You probably masturbate while cutting yourself.

Everybody here would be doing themselves a favor to just ignore everything you say from now on. I know I will.

I suggest you find 4Chan or something where there are more miserable little worms like you hanging about the place.

WISHIMAY

Sunday, September 24, 2017 4:26 AM

Don't hear you denying you tried to trap her, 6ix.

Not that you would admit to it, after all the whining for sympathy you've done.

You may not remember, but you've brought it up at least 6 times now.

YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED OUT ON IT, STOP BRINGING IT UP...

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, September 24, 2017 4:33 AM

How would I trap her? The idea is ridiculous. It's not like I was the one on birth control.

Given my attitude about money, purposefully trying to knock up some girl and have to deal with all of the expenses that come with a child with or without marriage being a factor doesn't even make any sense. I think my history speaks for itself here.

What I don't understand is why she told me about it in the first place. It wasn't for financial reasons. She wasn't asking me to give her money for an abortion. She should have kept it to herself if she was going to do that. It's not as if in the world we live in my opinion mattered at all anyhow.

I didn't bring it up. I brought up an argument that Kiki started that happened to have this involved in it along the way, and then YOU brought it to the forefront again.

You can go back to abusing your husband and daughter for kicks. I'm done replying to your BS now.

1KIKI

Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:35 AM

6

I said I wasn't going tyo discuss that one unhappy part of your life. and I won't. But overall, my observation is that you have a lot of issues on the topic of women that go far beyond that one event. Not discussing that one thing out of consideration doesn't mean that my impression of you has changed.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, September 24, 2017 6:05 AM

That's fine Kiki. Overall, I'm not much of a fan of yours either.

You may go out of your way to get into it and devolve to personal attacks quickly, but you're nowhere near as malicious and hateful as Wishy is. I appreciate the fact that when somebody requests that we back off a personal topic that you immediately do so. How long do you think it will be now before Wishy comes back with another one? She can't help herself. She seems to love talking about me.

WISHIMAY

Sunday, September 24, 2017 12:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
How long do you think it will be now before Wishy comes back with another one?

HOW LONG DO YOU INTEND TO BRING IT UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF "THOSE HORRIBLE FEMINISTS", WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN WANT A KID? She did you a damn favor and you know it. But if you admit THAT you'd have to admit you are just as bad as the feminists you loathe.

When you stop whining and start looking in the damn mirror, I'll be happy to stop!

1KIKI

Sunday, September 24, 2017 2:03 PM

Quote:
My argument was that because they have children, they end up getting paid twice what I get paid

To be accurate, your argument was because THEY ARE WOMEN they got paid twice what you got paid. I was the one who pointed out that being either male or female is not part of the EIC equation, but having children in the household is.

Quote:
She will confuse you by talking about so many things at once and make you say contradictory things if you're not careful. She's an expert at arguing. Look at her. She lives for it.

Shall I point out the unprovoked personal attack in this one?

And 6, I didn't 'confuse' you. You are confused. You say different things about the same topic because you think different things about the same topic. You say that /wages went down because women joined the labor force. Not that there's anything wrong with women being in the labor force, but they should be minding the children. Not that women specifically should be minding the children, because sometimes the best mom for the job is 'mister mom'. But there's no role anymore for the man to be the breadwinner./ You literally contradict yourself sentence to sentence. In the same post. Without any help from me.

Quote:
This whole issue was brought up about the BS "Gender Wage Gap". Obama comes out and talks about it like it's a real thing ... and people ... start to believe that if they're women I am making more than they do for the same job, which is absolutely illegal.

It's not illegal, which is why women getting paid less for the same work is as widespread as it is to this day. Where did you get the idea that it was illegal? You can do what you please, as long as you don't SAY out loud you're paying women less BECAUSE they're women.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, September 24, 2017 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
To be accurate, your argument was because THEY ARE WOMEN they got paid twice what you got paid. I was the one who pointed out that being either male or female is not part of the EIC equation, but having children in the household is.

To be accurate, my argument is because they are women WITH CHILDREN, they got paid twice what I got paid. There can be no legitimate argument against the fact that a majority of single parents that are getting max EIC benefits are women.

The reason this was brought up is because close to half of the country now is working at near minimum wage which tends to be right in the sweet spot for EIC benefit max payout. Put these two facts together and for the bottom half of the country in earnings, women on average make more than men do for the same job.

Quote:
She will confuse you by talking about so many things at once and make you say contradictory things if you're not careful. She's an expert at arguing. Look at her. She lives for it. -6

Quote:
Shall I point out the unprovoked personal attack in this one? -Kiki

Whatever floats your boat.

It was not unprovoked. You had already started up again. It wasn't an attack either. It's what you do. Not my problem if you can't look at yourself and see it.

Quote:
And 6, I didn't 'confuse' you. You are confused. You say different things about the same topic because you think different things about the same topic. You say that /wages went down because women joined the labor force. Not that there's anything wrong with women being in the labor force, but they should be minding the children. Not that women specifically should be minding the children, because sometimes the best mom for the job is 'mister mom'. But there's no role anymore for the man to be the breadwinner./ You literally contradict yourself sentence to sentence. In the same post. Without any help from me.

You do the same thing. I think everybody does. Orwell wasn't just making stuff up when he talked about DoubleThink.

Wages did go down because of women joining the work force.
There's nothign wrong with women being in the labor force.
"Somebody" should be minding the children, not specifically women.
Sometimes the best mom for the job is Mr. Mom.
Men in quite a few cases have no possibility of ever being the bread winner.

I stand by all of those thoughts, and see no reason why any of them are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
This whole issue was brought up about the BS "Gender Wage Gap". Obama comes out and talks about it like it's a real thing ... and people ... start to believe that if they're women I am making more than they do for the same job, which is absolutely illegal. -6

Quote:
It's not illegal -Kiki

Yes it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

1KIKI

Sunday, September 24, 2017 2:44 PM

Quote:
women on average make more than men do for the same job

Not according to the wage scale paid by the employer. You're conflating federal tax policy with hourly pay rates. They're two different things.

Quote:
She will confuse you by talking about so many things at once and make you say contradictory things if you're not careful. She's an expert at arguing. Look at her. She lives for it. -6

Quote:
Shall I point out the unprovoked personal attack in this one? -Kiki

Quote:
It was not unprovoked. You had already started up again. -6

Started WHAT up agaion? Debating your posts? Is that all it takes?

Quote:
It wasn't an attack either. It's what you do.

So when you do 'it', it's not an attack, but when I do 'it', it is?

Quote:
Wages did go down because of women joining the work force.

Wages went down BEFORE women joined the labor force in large numbers. (There was always a female presence in the labor force.) The only way you could dispute that was by saying you didn't believe the numbers I posted. not that you posted any of your own, of course. You never do.

Quote:
... (no employer) shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [...]

As I said, you can pay women less for the same work as long as you don't say out loud that's what you do.

You can claim the work is not equal work, that different levels of skill, effort, or responsibility are required, that the individuals merit different pay for different performance levels, or quantity or quality of production ...

Not only that but you can differentially hire and promote men over women by jury-rigging requirements, or by claiming more men were hired or promoted because more men happened to meet those requirements.

Proving otherwise is extremely difficult, which is why those cases rarely come up.

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, September 24, 2017 3:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
women on average make more than men do for the same job -6

Quote:
no. Not according to the wage scale paid by the employer. You're confusing federal tax policy with hourly pay rates. They're two different things. -Kiki

I'm not confusing anything. I'm just not recognizing a bullshit distinction. Anyone "earning" the EIC would not be getting any EIC credit if they did not work the job. It doesn't matter where the money comes from.

Quote:
... shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [...]

Quote:
As I said, you can pay women less for the same work as long as you don't say out loud that's what you do.

You can claim the work is not equal work, that different levels of skill, effort, or responsibility are required, that the individuals merit different pay for different performance levels, or quantity or quality of production ...

Not only that but you can differentially hire and promote men over women by jury-rigging requirements, or by claiming more men were hired or promoted because more men happened to meet those requirements.

Proving otherwise is extremely difficult, which is why those cases rarely come up.

Sure. No argument from me there.

And the equal and opposite is true as well.

1KIKI

Sunday, September 24, 2017 5:11 PM

https://www.pay-equity.org/PDFs/IWPR-Occupation2012.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States

Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, September 24, 2017 9:42 PM

Well.... those articles certainly seem to be a bit more reasonable, although I think it's pretty hard to just blame even 5-6% on "discrimination". Assuming that is just laziness and doesn't account for any case-by-case basis research.

That being said, I wouldn't be as opposed to hearing the argument if these were the more reasonable figures used by people like Obama and Kristen Bell when they use the completely misrepresented figures of 77 cents on the dollar. You are aware of how that 77 cents figure is derived and why it's disingenuous, right?

As for my argument about the EIC and the final pay that people at the poverty wage make at the end of the year, the section under the second graph in the IWPR study only bolsters it.

Quote:
Women are More than Twice as Likely as Men to Work in Occupations With Poverty Wages

That might not be good for the overall figure that leads us to the 77 cents argument, but for the bottom half of earners in the country, this means that there is even double the chance that the female employees are getting a huge bump in EIC earnings on top of the already much greater chance that a woman fulfills the qualifications for the largest EIC payout.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 25, 2017 2:12 AM

Quote:
As I said, you can pay women less for the same work as long as you don't say out loud that's what you do.

You can claim the work is not equal work, that different levels of skill, effort, or responsibility are required, that the individuals merit different pay for different performance levels, or quantity or quality of production ...

Not only that but you can differentially hire and promote men over women by jury-rigging requirements, or by claiming more men were hired or promoted because more men happened to meet those requirements.

Proving otherwise is extremely difficult, which is why those cases rarely come up.

It's the same thing with age discrimination, or color discrimination.

Quote:
Well.... those articles certainly seem to be a bit more reasonable, although I think it's pretty hard to just blame even 5-6% on "discrimination". Assuming that is just laziness and doesn't account for any case-by-case basis research. - SIX

Well, SIX that's where you're wrong. There are just too many studies that show that when work results (loan applications, rental applications, grant applications, job applications, papers submitted for peer review, sales figures, etc etc) are evaluated on a "blinded" basis ... in other words, the reviewer(s) has(have) no way of knowing or guessing the applicant's race, sex, or age ... women (people of color, the middle-aged) actually come out MUCH FARTHER AHEAD than young white men.

I'm not telling you this to make you feel guilty or to try to take away anything from you or less proud of your accomplishments, simply to try and inform you that's reality.

So IMHO people should be evaluated as much as possible on a blinded basis simply to reduce the role of prejudice. And in the future going forward, we should be dedicated to being a true meritocracy, so that people's talents and hard work will be fairly and honestly rewarded. That's how you make hard work, honesty, and talents the base of an economy; not hobnobbing, greed, and oligarchism.

HOWEVER, whether the role of prejudice accounts for 6% .... or 60% .... of the average person's wealth, income, or prospects .... it simply does NOT match up to the HUGE wealth inequality overhanging the entire USA economy, and the complete lack of agency over the larger aspects of our collective future.

Did WE export jobs to China? Did WE decide to embark on a program of endless wars? Did WE decide to base our economy on debt? Did WE set up the wage/reward structure, or the tax structure? Why do the top 25 "tech" money-grabbers make more than all of the kindergarten teachers COMBINED?

Why don't we just commit to fixing the system to eliminate prejudice to the extent possible, and focus on the REAL BIG inequities that are facing us right now, instead of quibbling over peanuts?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, September 25, 2017 3:20 AM

I don't believe for a second that in blind tests that it turns out that minorities and women come out ahead of white men on a consistent basis. You'd have to site some pretty credible sources from all over the political spectrum for me to even begin to believe that.

You did say "young white men" though, which does make it a very different story. I would only take that particular stat seriously if the other people in the blind were also of the same age. Kids today all over the map are kind of screwed for a lot of reasons. I'm not young, and I've done pretty well. I still wouldn't want to compare my current net worth against my mom's, although I would kill her credit score any given day.

I agree with everything else you posted though. I'm not at all against "blind" becoming the practice everywhere, as it would foster a meritocracy. There's a reason why it hasn't been done though, and that's because when the results came in people who were not fairing well would bitch about one "ism" or another.

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 25, 2017 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

Men in quite a few cases have no possibility of ever being the bread winner.

Yes it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

My hubby must be Superman, he's been primary breadwinner for 14 years.
With Asperger's, and the worlds' worst parents, no less.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gender-pay-gap-buffer_us_56f03672e
4b03a640a6b2f92

Yet despite a clearly scrupulous commitment to pay fairness, Buffer just realized that women at the company make less than men overall. The average annual salary for a man at Buffer is $98,705, while women make $89,205, according to internal analysis from Feb. 23, Buffer released last week — its first look at gender and pay.

We were surprised,” Courtney Seiter, who heads up Buffer’s inclusivity efforts, told The Huffington Post. “We’ve had transparent salaries for two and half years, we put out so much data that it never occurred to us to analyze it [for gender] until recently.”

Within professions, women tend to make less money because they gravitate to work that is less demanding or requires fewer hours. Many need flexibility and time to take care of children and family. So more men become partner at high-paying law firms, while female lawyers might gravitate to lower-paying in-house legal jobs, for example. The work of economist Claudia Goldin at Harvard has been emphatic on this point. It also means that we take more time away from the workforce, further depressing wages.

Negotiation won’t fix this. Policy solutions might help, for example, by providing paid parental leave and, possibly, subsidized child-care that would allow more women to stay in the workforce and even out the gap.

Those women that work are usually ALSO the primary caregivers for children.

Bitching about what single parents make is ASSHOLIC. They provide for those who CANNOT, which we all were at one point. Speaking personally, the Gen-X women are ALSO taking care of aging parents, or in my case, an aging GRANDPARENT...because my Boomer relatives are narcissists.

I am in favor of giving tax breaks to people who do not have children, but it isn't going to happen. You've ALREADY got it easy, anyway.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 25, 2017 4:36 AM

Quote:
Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians
Additionally, as part of these revisions, a number of orchestras adopted “blind” auditions whereby screens are used to conceal the identity and gender of the musician from the jury. In the years after these changes were instituted, the percent of female musicians in the five highest-ranked orchestras in the nation increased from 6 percent in 1970 to 21 percent in 1993.

http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9C
blind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians

Also http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903

Quote:
Double-blind peer review reveals gender bias
“A difference of 7.9% in the proportion of female first-authored papers following the implementation of double-blind review in BE is ” http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07305/“>three times greater than the recorded increase in female ecology graduates in the USA across the same time period and represents a 33% increase in the representation of female authors. Furthermore, this increased representation of female authors more accurately reflects the ” (US" target="_BLANK">http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/employ.htm">(US) life sciences academic workforce composition, which is 37% female.

http://blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2008/01/doubleblind_peer_review_r
eveal.html

Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis
https://arxiv.org/vc/math/papers/0701/0701537v2.pdf

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 68, No. 2, 2012, pp. 221--237
Identifying Discrimination at Work: The Use of Field Experiments
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/identifying_discriminatio
n_pager_western.pdf

Woman Who Switched to Man's Name on Resume Goes From 0 to 70 Percent Response Rate
http://www.nysscpa.org/news/publications/the-trusted-professional/arti
cle/woman-who-switched-to-man's-name-on-resume-goes-from-0-to-70-percent-response-rate-060816

I've heard about these studies over the years. Sometimes they were "sting" operations which sent couples looking for a rental, identical in every way except for color. Other times they were loan applications, identical in every way except that sometimes the applicant was a woman and sometimes a man. Still others were scientific journals who instituted double-blind peer review, orchestras who auditioned their applicants from behind a screen, grant applications that were reviewed "blinded" etc etc. Too many to dredge up now.

My own personal experience, being told "We've always had a woman in the lab" as opposed to field-testing at large industries.

And then there is the personal experience of a biochemist who has literally experienced BOTH worlds, having transitioned from female to male.

Quote:
In his commentary Barres points to data from a range of studies showing bias in science. For example, when a mixed panel of scientists evaluated grant proposals without names, men and women fared equally well. However, competing unblinded, a woman applying for a research grant needed to be three times more productive than men to be considered equally competent.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060714174545.htm

I overstated the results ... when tested or reviewed "blinded", women did as well as men. As opposed to doing much worse than men when reviewed unblinded.

Anyway, I think this is one way to reduce discrimiation.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, September 25, 2017 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:

My hubby must be Superman, he's been primary breadwinner for 14 years.
With Asperger's, and the worlds' worst parents, no less.

I said in many cases. Not even a majority. The largest part of your husband being the breadwinner in your family is because of your inability to be one. I'm not even trying to be insulting here. If you were a pharmacist like my sis-in-law, you'd be the breadwinner and nothing he could do would compete with that. She makes enough money so my brother can be the stay at home dad. My niece is a very lucky person.

Quote:
Yet despite a clearly scrupulous commitment to pay fairness, Buffer just realized that women at the company make less than men overall. The average annual salary for a man at Buffer is $98,705, while women make $89,205, according to internal analysis from Feb. 23, Buffer released last week — its first look at gender and pay.

What are the different types of jobs that the men and women work at the job?

This is the problem with the addition to the word "overall", and how we get the BS statistics that women make 77 cents to the dollar of what men make. Mmany larger companies hire their own union employees, which typically are male in the more dangerous professions such as elevator repair and electricians, and they also command a very high pay because they are union. Other points made in the articles Kiki posted are the amount of hours worked, overtime, leave of absences, ect.

Quote:
Within professions, women tend to make less money because they gravitate to work that is less demanding or requires fewer hours. Many need flexibility and time to take care of children and family. So more men become partner at high-paying law firms, while female lawyers might gravitate to lower-paying in-house legal jobs, for example. The work of economist Claudia Goldin at Harvard has been emphatic on this point. It also means that we take more time away from the workforce, further depressing wages.

Exactly. Glad to see the HuffPo is actually being objective about something for a change.

Quote:
Negotiation won’t fix this. Policy solutions might help, for example, by providing paid parental leave and, possibly, subsidized child-care that would allow more women to stay in the workforce and even out the gap.

Ah.... there's the rub.

Why don't you put your career first, or get a worthwhile degree for an in demand job that commands a higher salary? Why does policy need to be enforced to ensure an equal outcome?

I'm all for policies that promote equal opportunity. I'm very much against policies that enforce an equal outcome.

Equal opportunity is something that can be quantified and an agreement can be come to on what exactly that means in a subjective manner. Equal outcome is purely objective, and nobody will ever agree on what that is and somebody will always be screwed in the end.

Quote:
Those women that work are usually ALSO the primary caregivers for children.

Maybe. I don't understand your personal issue with the women we're talking about here though. There is no way that you could ever make close to even what these women make, let alone the slightly larger salary the men are making. Any woman making that much money could easily be the only parent working if they lived comfortably within their means.

Quote:
Bitching about what single parents make is ASSHOLIC. They provide for those who CANNOT, which we all were at one point. Speaking personally, the Gen-X women are ALSO taking care of aging parents, or in my case, an aging GRANDPARENT...because my Boomer relatives are narcissists.

I'm not bitching about it. I'm just pointing out that for the lower half of Americans who are living in or close to poverty that women actually make more than men do because of Government subsidies.

Quote:
I am in favor of giving tax breaks to people who do not have children, but it isn't going

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 25, 2017 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

I said in many cases.

Maybe.

I'm not bitching about it. I'm just pointing out that for the lower half of Americans who are living in or close to poverty that women actually make more than men do because of Government subsidies.

But that's because of what I did with my money.

Literally HALF of the males in this country are breadwinners.

"Today, almost 50% of U.S. women are now the family breadwinners, and two-thirds of women are either primary or co-breadwinners, according to SUM180, an online personal financial platform aimed at women."

Women DO provide more care for children and the aged. WHILE WORKING A PAYING JOB AS WELL.

•An estimated 66% of caregivers are female. [Updated February 2015] 6, 7
•The average caregiver is a 49 year old woman, caring for her 60 year old mother who does not live with her. She is married and employed. [Updated Februrary 2015] 8
•Although men also provide assistance, female caregivers may spend as much as 50% more time providing care than male caregivers.9

YOU HAVE IT EASY FINANCIALLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A CHILD. All you have bitched about since you GOT HERE was that women with children get more than you do, you lazy BUM.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, September 25, 2017 7:12 AM

I have it easy because I don't have a child, I don't have a mortgage, I don't have a car payment, I don't have a cell phone, I don't have cable TV, I moved to a state with low property taxes, I got my property taxes further cut by more than half, and my living expenses are roughly 5 to 6 thousand dollars per year, barring any emergency expenditures.

I don't know what you're arguing otherwise. I admitted a lot of women were breadwinners now. I'm not arguing that point at all.

Also, I don't know why I have to keep saying this part. I'm not bitching that women get government EIC payments that effectively make their salary double what I get. I bitch that I constantly have to hear about a non-existent or completely meaningless wage gap on top of it, depending on the situation.

Those making around 100k plus right now don't need to be making any more and could easily be the sole working parent if they wanted to. No man needs to be making more than 100k either.

Those that need it most make twice what I do because the government pays them to work. Most of them happen to be women. I'm okay with that. Just call it what it is.

Since I "GOT HERE"?

I've been here quite a lot longer than you have, little miss. I was pulling down quite a bit of money when I did too. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

WISHIMAY

Monday, September 25, 2017 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
barring any emergency expenditures.

I bitch that I constantly have to hear about a non-existent or completely meaningless wage gap on top of it, depending on the situation.

No man needs to be making more than 100k either.

...Just call it what it is.

Since I "GOT HERE"?

I've been here quite a lot longer than you have, little miss.

Like your teeth falling out? Or the cirrhosis? Those eventual expenditures?

The wage gap exists, but since many companies do not allow employees to discuss wages, it's hard to say how much of one there is. Either way, women are the ones working AND taking care of everything else, which means they get paid less. And studies have proven the get penalized more for even asking for better pay.

"The men in the study, however, said they'd only be less inclined to hire the female candidate who tried to negotiate. They didn't penalize the male candidate for doing the same."
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/03/commentary/everyday/sahadi/

HERE IS A STUDY THAT ADJUSTS FOR THE CHILD ISSUE AND STILL FOUND A 7% GAP IN PEOPLE WHO MADE THE SAME EDUCATIONAL CHOICES.... IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, READ THIS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The report controls for occupation, major, hours worked, parenthood, and many other factors to reveal that college-educated women working full time were paid an unexplained 7% less than their male counterparts were paid one year after graduation. To clarify, this analysis looks at men and women who have made the same educational and occupational choices and still finds a gap.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2014/04/07/the-awful-tru
th-of-the-gender-pay-gap-it-gets-worse-as-women-age/#51fbde0b1ed4

Oh, and thanks for instituting what pay cap people should earn, Fuhrer....

Prolly the dumbest thing you said all day.

You don't take into account ANYTHING like commuting, living in an expensive area, a woman having a multiple birth, needing the money for medical conditions, there is a MILLION reasons for a salary over 100k.

YOU LEFT the site for a long time, so don't go there. I've been here since 2006. Not that I care when you got here, I'll only care when you leave.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, September 25, 2017 9:38 AM

Dentures are cheap. Not worried about that. I doubt I'll have any lasting effects from the drinking as long as I don't go back to it. I'm down 40 lbs since Christmas and I'm getting my six pack back. I'm pretty copacetic on the health front. Thanks for caring.

77% plus 7% is only 84%. That means that you've ceded 16%. That's progress. I can't prove one way or another about the other 7%, and nobody else can either, but I'll admit that there very well could be a small difference like that... as long as we're completely ignoring the government benefits. (EIC, welfare, etc.)

I'm not instituting any caps on pay, or even suggesting that somebody does. Stop being an idiot.

You or your husband combined don't make close to that and you get by, so I don't understand why you're trying to "fight" for the rights of women making nearly 100k when you don't have any hope of ever coming close to that "problem" yourself.

You also have a cell phone and cable TV and quite a few other expenditures that aren't necessary if you really budgeted as well, I'm sure. I just heard that the average American spends over $1,200 per year on fast food, for instance. That's gross for so many reasons.

There are plenty of people who are making it by on much less than your family take home pay. If you were making more, you'd just spend more, is my point.

I've been here since 2005 or 2006. Your profile says 2010. What name did you go by back then?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, February 1, 2018 12:41 PM

Anybody heard of the new study showing those injected with vaccines and still survive are something like 23 times more likely to spread the contagion they were injected/infected with.
So the vaccinations create the "herd" to be carriers and distribute, disseminate it to the whole population.

Heard parts of the discussion on Clyde somebodies radio show Ground Zero.

1KIKI

Thursday, February 1, 2018 2:31 PM

That sounds like it could be interesting if you could provide just a wee bit more information for follow-up.

HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 1, 2018 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Anybody heard of the new study showing those injected with vaccines and still survive are something like 23 times more likely to spread the contagion they were injected/infected with.
So the vaccinations create the "herd" to be carriers and distribute, disseminate it to the whole population.

Heard parts of the discussion on Clyde somebodies radio show Ground Zero.

I don't know what to think about Flu Vaccines.

All I know is that I've never taken one and I've never had the Flu.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, February 1, 2018 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
That sounds like it could be interesting if you could provide just a wee bit more information for follow-up.

I recall mention of mere breathing being the spreading action, and flu vaccines causing the neurological disorders. But I don't get a good hit on searching. The specific link was given, and was admitted to be hard to find, but I didn't write it down while driving.

OK, try groundzeromedia.org with Clyde Lewis. Shots In The Dark show dated 31 Jan. I cannot check that content at this time. On the show he did recite a specific link address.

WISHIMAY

Friday, February 2, 2018 12:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Dentures are cheap.

I'm not instituting any caps on pay, or even suggesting that somebody does. Stop being an idiot.

I don't understand why you're trying to "fight" for the rights of women

You also have a cell phone and cable TV and quite a few other expenditures that aren't necessary if you really budgeted as well, I'm sure. I just heard that the average American spends over $1,200 per year on fast food, for instance. That's gross for so many reasons.

Dentures are cheap... that's a laugh. My neighbor had to have her teeth removed last month and JUST the removal surgeries and revisions were over 8 THOUSAND BUCKS.

Yes, you did suggest pay caps.

"Those making around 100k plus right now don't need to be making any more and could easily be the sole working parent if they wanted to. No man needs to be making more than 100k either."

I only got a cell phone LAST YEAR, and only because I had to coordinate health care with my aunt over my grandma. I did not want one, we do NOT have cable. I don't collect anything, and I rarely spend a buck on myself.

I will ALWAYS fight for womens rights, because women are still being married off as children, are still being raped and killed and abused, and are still treated as inferior. WHY WOULD I *NOT* WANT THAT TO STOP??

As for fast food...WHEN YOU HAVE TO FEED ANOTHER BEING EVERY DAMN DAY... FAST FOOD BECOMES A NECESSITY. Even with all the things we can't eat, we still have to buy some fast food when we are out all day. Who are you to judge?? All you have to think about is yourself.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, February 2, 2018 3:40 PM

Wow. Necropost much, Wishy?

(Wishy's heavily edited version of my post that takes things out of context to fit her narrative):

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringWishy:
Dentures are cheap.

I'm not instituting any caps on pay, or even suggesting that somebody does. Stop being an idiot.

I don't understand why you're trying to "fight" for the rights of women

You also have a cell phone and cable TV and quite a few other expenditures that aren't necessary if you really budgeted as well, I'm sure. I just heard that the average American spends over $1,200 per year on fast food, for instance. That's gross for so many reasons.

(Original, unedited quote from September 24th of last year):

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Dentures are cheap. Not worried about that. I doubt I'll have any lasting effects from the drinking as long as I don't go back to it. I'm down 40 lbs since Christmas and I'm getting my six pack back. I'm pretty copacetic on the health front. Thanks for caring.

77% plus 7% is only 84%. That means that you've ceded 16%. That's progress. I can't prove one way or another about the other 7%, and nobody else can either, but I'll admit that there very well could be a small difference like that... as long as we're completely ignoring the government benefits. (EIC, welfare, etc.)

I'm not instituting any caps on pay, or even suggesting that somebody does. Stop being an idiot.

You or your husband combined don't make close to that and you get by, so I don't understand why you're trying to "fight" for the rights of women making nearly 100k when you don't have any hope of ever coming close to that "problem" yourself.

You also have a cell phone and cable TV and quite a few other expenditures that aren't necessary if you really budgeted as well, I'm sure. I just heard that the average American spends over $1,200 per year on fast food, for instance. That's gross for so many reasons.

There are plenty of people who are making it by on much less than your family take home pay. If you were making more, you'd just spend more, is my point.

I've been here since 2005 or 2006. Your profile says 2010. What name did you go by back then?

Quote:
Wishy: Dentures are cheap... that's a laugh. My neighbor had to have her teeth removed last month and JUST the removal surgeries and revisions were over 8 THOUSAND BUCKS.

They're cheap, relatively speaking to other options available and to general health things that are covered under insurance.

Exhibit A: In order to go through both the periodontal process and the oral surgery including laser treatment, bone grafts, posts and false teeth, it would cost me upwards of $60,000 in comparison. Your figure of $8,000 is correct. My own research put that at anywhere from $6,000-$9,000, assuming I don't spring for the top-shelf dentures that alone would cost more than that.

Exhibit B: Around 22 years old, when I was uninsured, I had a lump on my testicle for about a month before I went to get it checked out. It went away a week or two later, but not after $5,000 I was charged to have an ultrasound and have a doctor tell me that it was a harmless cyst. This was back in 2001 or so, so I would imagine at this point that the same procedure would cost more than your neighbor's tooth removal and dentures cost.

Quote:
Wishy: Yes, you did suggest pay caps.

Quote:
6ix: "Those making around 100k plus right now don't need to be making any more and could easily be the sole working parent if they wanted to. No man needs to be making more than 100k either."

No. I didn't. I just said that nobody needs to be making more than that. Nobody needs that money to survive. It was just an observation of the truth. I didn't make any suggestions at all about what their employers shoul

WISHIMAY

Saturday, February 3, 2018 2:14 AM

You have the most juvenile perspective of money for an over 30 yr old I've ever met.

It's like you are frozen in Jr High land.

You have NO IDEA how much it costs to raise a child, pay for healthcare, schooling, pets, entertainment, clothing, transportation, housing, and decent food for three people and yet you proclaim no one should make over 100 thou??

To you it sounds like "lots and lots of money" because you don't have to take responsibility for anything but yourself.

Ludicrous.

Hubbs made good money this year, and before the settlement we still had difficulty paying the $2300 to repair the van and get new tires, and that's for ONE vehicle.

Women ARE still treated as things in this country and in pretty much every other country on Earth. You see the women YOUR age and think "entitled princesses" and that is all there is, because of your INCREDIBLY LIMITED EXPERIENCE??

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/health/ending-child-marriage-in-america/
index.html
"Did you know there were over 200,000 child marriages in America in the last 14 years," Johnson says. "Over 16,000 were in Florida."

The children here are GIRLS. They aren't forcing 11 yr old boys to get married!

Btw, she and I are allergic to cats. And yeah, I have also taught my tall, blond, pretty, and intelligent daughter to be allergic to scrubs like you. She might actually have a fullfilling life without dealing with narcissistic man-babies like yourself.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, February 3, 2018 6:38 AM

Yup. Juvenile. That's why my house is paid for, my credit score is 822 and I haven't owed a dime to anybody since 2006.

So I guess I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your reply since you started it off like that. Maybe I'll get back to you in 4 months and throw a necropost back at you.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JO753

Saturday, February 3, 2018 9:44 AM

Started az an interesting thred. Too bad it dejenerated into another argument.
At least many uv us agree on sumthing: too many peepl.

I havent red much past the 1st 5 or so posts - just enuf to see that it wuznt worth reading. Sorry if I'v missed anything worthwile, but I hav a minor comment.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
That's what I'm trying to say, I think the chances are slim to none, and none went fishing.

No. It wuz Slim.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

WISHIMAY

Saturday, February 3, 2018 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:

I havent red much past the 1st 5 or so posts - just enuf to see that it wuznt worth reading. Sorry if I'v missed anything worthwile, but I hav a minor comment.

Didn't miss a thing, brah.

Just the usual 6ix telling everyone how they should live, saying women are never mistreated here in delusionland, and once again talking about paying off his house...'cause it's all he's got.

No, you didn't miss a thing.

Slim AND None caught some nice fish though...

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, February 3, 2018 9:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Started az an interesting thred. Too bad it dejenerated into another argument.
At least many uv us agree on sumthing: too many peepl.

I havent red much past the 1st 5 or so posts - just enuf to see that it wuznt worth reading. Sorry if I'v missed anything worthwile, but I hav a minor comment.

It quickly devolved after the OP.
With skimming or scrolling, it seems if you check the posts which have gobs of linkies, those cover the meat of this thread. Not much discussion of the topic, though.
When I picked this thread to bump with the vaccinations study, I was recalling the OP. Not really the same topic, but along similar lines. I had been looking for that thread in News Headline, but couldn't find it.

1KIKI

Saturday, July 24, 2021 3:15 AM

So, I've been posting about antibiotic resistance for a long time, mostly because it's another example of humanity repeatedly shooting itself in the foot for trivial reasons, and seemingly being unable to stop itself from doing so (along with global warming and deforestation; nuclear weapons arsenals and unhinged hostilities; mass use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and growth promoters by the hundreds of thousands of tons each year; unrestricted mass use of disposable forever plastics; and so on.)

In that vein, this article caught my eye.

Quote:
'Superbug' fungus spread in two cities, health officials say

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials said Thursday they now have evidence of an untreatable fungus spreading in two hospitals and a nursing home.

The “superbug” outbreaks were reported in a Washington, D.C, nursing home and at two Dallas-area hospitals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A handful of the patients had invasive fungal infections that were impervious to all three major classes of medications.

“This is really the first time we’ve started seeing clustering of resistance” in which patients seemed to be getting the infections from each other, said the CDC’s Dr. Meghan Lyman.

The fungus, Candida auris, is a harmful form of yeast that is considered dangerous to hospital and nursing home patients with serious medical problems. It is most deadly when it enters the bloodstream, heart or brain. Outbreaks in health care facilities have been spurred when the fungus spread through patient contact or on contaminated surfaces.

Health officials have sounded alarms for years about the superbug after seeing infections in which commonly used drugs had little effect.

In 2019, doctors diagnosed three cases in New York that were also resistant to a class of drugs, called echinocandins, that were considered a last line of defense. In those cases, there was no evidence the infections had spread from patient to patient — scientists concluded the resistance to the drugs formed during treatment. The new cases did spread, the CDC concluded.

In Washington, D.C., a cluster of 101 C. auris cases at a nursing home dedicated to very sick patients included three that were resistant to all three kinds of antifungal medications. A cluster of 22 in two Dallas-area hospitals included two with that level of resistance. The facilities weren’t identified.

Those cases were seen from January to April. Of the five people who were fully resistant to treatment, three died — both Texas patients and one in Washington.

Lyman said both are ongoing outbreaks and that additional infections have been identified since April. But those added numbers were not reported.

Investigators reviewed medical records and found no evidence of previous antifungal use among the patients in those clusters. Health officials say that means they spread from person to person.

https://apnews.com/article/business-science-health-f2c6f1712e7d6907e54
3bb9e3dc53d2d

and just because it's interesting - phages that transfer antibiotic resistance genes between bacteria are found in chicken
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=1&tid=59802

‘Nightmare bacteria’ spreading rapidly in Southeastern US
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58430

Single bacterial super-clone behind epidemic of drug-resistant E. coli
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57101

Dangerous MRSA bacteria expand into communities
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57058

‘Superbugs’ Found Breeding in Chinese Sewage Plants
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57057

A new kind of Ebola?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58434

If w