Repeat After Me

[Omerta+ 1,206]

What he's saying is anecdotal evidence doesn't make for a very strong argument. I know both you and Ngata are fully intelligent enough to understand what blots is saying. Please stop playing dumb. There will ALWAYS be lazy people in every field of work in every society and people to pick up their slack. This has literally always been the case. At the restaurant I work at 95% of the women are pretty lazy but when they have direction they work. I see them standing in a corner on their phone and I give them a job. This isn't a generational thing imo. This is a smart phone thing. There are plenty of people in their 30's and 40's in their phone. I've worked with them and I've worked all kinds of jobs.

 

It's easy for me to work hard. At a restaurant I would like to be home before 1 AM and on the job site the faster you get a job done, the more money you make and the fast I can get home and have a drink or some a little herb and come talk shit with you guys on TGP.

I actually really never know what he is truly trying to say, unless it's something derogatory about the man, or cops, or the military, or just something derogatory.

 

The second part to this, is people use anecdotal evidence all the time. Take last night for instance, everybody in the shoutbox was willing to hang cops out to dry for the whole body cam thing. A cop turns his body cam off, thus he is doing something nefarious. Would you not say that's anecdotal evidence at best? Now of course the arguments going to be made, well of course it's just common sense. Can't you say the same thing for lazy people? Are there not lazy people, do we really have to quantify that or can we not just take that as a given? Because if we can't take that as a given then where forced to have hard evidence for everything. Now I'm okay with this, but that means people can no longer dog religion, making assumptions about what cops are doing, make assumptions about the intent of white people, comment on White Privilege without ever being white, comment on black privilege without ever being black, comment on female privilege without being female, comment on anything you really can't quantify. You can't quantify privilege either, but everybody likes to throw those things around as if they're hard facts. Well, they're not. So if he wants to say we can't use anecdotal evidence and he needs to lighten up about all those privileges, you included.

 

What about politics in general? Since Trump got elected, we'll never know if Bernie Sanders was any good right? It's all anecdotal evidence at best. So why even argue about other candidates and how they would have been better, I could say Jesus Christ would have been better but we don't know that considering he wasn't on a political platform. All we know is that Trump is president now, so how do we get to bitch about him in comparison to other people? The only way you can accurately compare that, is if there is a president at the exact same time facing the exact same issues he is. Anything else is just a guess, or anecdotal evidence is it not?

 

Or what about cherries Proclamation that if you get pulled over for a DUI, you have at least been driving drunk once before that. Is that not anecdotal evidence?

 

That's the thing, is people are more than willing to use anecdotal evidence to prove their point when it supports the conclusion they've already made up in their mind. However when it runs counter to what they believe or what they want to talk about, it's no longer acceptable. If I can't say there are lazy people using anecdotal evidence, you can't say that cop was in the wrong using anecdotal evidence now can you? After all, it doesn't make for the strongest argument now does it?

Edited December 11, 2017 by Omerta

[seanbrock 1,684]

I think it depends on how you use anecdotal evidence. When it's used to back up a point that's grounded in facts or other evidence it can be ok. It also depends on what you're talking about. I definitely hear what you're saying about confirmation bias but it is something that's a case by case sort of deal but I think it's a pretty good rule of thumb that if you make an argument based on anecdotal evidence that it's not really a strong argument. Basically anecdotal evidence should be used to support a point not make a point.

 

I wasn't here for the argument the cop and don't know the whole story, but why would a cop turn off his body cam unless he was about to do something he shouldn't be doing? I'm not saying it's impossible that he wasn't trying to cover something up but is it likely? Not very.

Edited December 11, 2017 by seanbrock

[Omerta+ 1,206]

One that same breath, How likely is it that they're lazy? We really going to sit here and say that people aren't lazy? If we are going to acknowledge that people are lazy, would you not say that that's a problem? Let's not even talk about an employer, but if you're lazy, you cheat yourself. So I mean if you're going to disregard that fact, because people don't have standards for themselves, then what about their employer, if you're getting paid for 8 hours shouldn't you work for 8 hours, or is 7 good enough?

[seanbrock 1,684]

It's just a fact of life. I don't think laziness is this huge problem that it wasn't 30 or 40 or a 100 years ago. It's the same idea as people not wanting anyone to say mean stuff or hurt people's feelings. Some people are just going to be assholes and some people are going to be lazy. I'm not even really sure what we're arguing at this point. People are lazy so we don't create a jobs program to to repair and upgrade infrastructure? We already said that we can give them less skilled, easier jobs and pay them less and reward talented people that work hard. I'd still rather pay somebody a decent wage to hold a sign or do something simple than just have them on government assistance because you're paying for them either way and hell some people could just use an opportunity to turn their life around, build a skill set and maybe break the habbit of laziness. It's better than just totally giving up on people.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I'm not arguing your philosophy at all, I like where your head's at on at all. Honestly, I was just commenting on the fact that we can't use anecdotal evidence to support viewpoints. That is something that is patently false. That was my only real point in all of this. When beware says that people are lazy and that's a problem, I agree. Although as evidence is anecdotal I would be willing to walk out on that limb. I'm not scribing to anything else that he said, other than his views on Progressive liberalism. I was just merely pointing to the fact that anecdotal evidence can be used to support points. That's it.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I don't think anyone is denying that there are lazy people. I just think that it's no more of a problem than it's ever been. You know how many millennials I know that 2 jobs? If you're going to sit here and tell me that the laziness of the younger generation is this huge problem that the laziness of some people in other generations was/is then I'm going to need to see some evidence other than what you've seen in the jobs that you wokred personally or that you might have observed or whatever.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I'm just pointing out that bware is a hypocrite for deriding the use of emotion when making decisions (such as say, valuing the lives of Muslims), when he is incredibly emotional, including in this case.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I'm just pointing out that bware is a hypocrite for deriding the use of emotion when making decisions (such as say, valuing the lives of Muslims), when he is incredibly emotional, including in this case.

Not sure how you can argue this point. Well said, Blots. Whether you think Blots is also hypocritical is another discussion that has nothing to do with the point he just made.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Not sure how you can argue this point. Well said, Blots. Whether you think Blots is also hypocritical is another discussion that has nothing to do with the point he just made.

Now that I can agree with, some of the best people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting in my life for interpreters that I met overseas. I have let a Muslim man in his wife watch Mike it on several occasions, and I trust them more than any other white people I trust to watch my kids. He's a great man, with solid values, who was tired of War. He is come over here and made us all in life for himself. I couldn't be more happy for him. My kids play with his kids, and we have barbecues at least two or three times a year, so I 100% can get behind the stance that I should value Muslim lies I should everyone else. I can agree that we need to be more stringent with who we allow in, that being said the guy that I am talking about it took him 6 years to get over here as a permanent resident. I had to interview for him three different times before the State Department officials, before he was granted a Visa. He just now got citizenship about 4 months ago, which coincidentally was the last time we had a barbecue together.

 

The reason I can ignore a whole bunch of people from this website, but I have not put Blots my ignore list is because I don't agree with him on just about everything, but the one thing I do agree with him on, is people like him have made it possible for Stuart (not his real name) to have a great life with him and his wife and his children, and to be happy in this city without anybody harassing him because he was born in Iraq.

 

So on that note, you get absolutely no argument from me. There were, evil, sorry pieces of crap that are Muslim, then there are some who are some of the best people you're ever going to meet.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Omerta

[Cherry 1,302]

Or what about cherries Proclamation that if you get pulled over for a DUI, you have at least been driving drunk once before that. Is that not anecdotal evidence?

 

https://www.aol.com/amp/2009/12/28/drunk-drivers-average-one-arrest-for-every-27-000-miles-driven-w/

 

Take the source for what you will, but despite being somewhat anecdotal (drunk driver dad) it's pretty common sense. High risk behaviors aren't spur of the moment decisions. Someone who hasn't driven drunk isn't as likely to drive drunk as someone who already does it.

 

I'm not saying it's a 100% guarantee that nobody who hasn't driven drunk before won't do it, but that it's more common for repeat offenders.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Chernobyl426

[seanbrock 1,684]

Honestly I think that drunk driving is an alcoholism issue. The best way to stop that stuff is probably treatment. As long as they're drinking they'll get behind the wheel. Addiction isn't rational. There are some alcoholics that don't drive drunk because they're afraid of consequences but a lot don't care once they've had a few.

 

There is a pill that you can take that makes it so you literally can't get drunk but it doesn't really feel right to make people take it and I'm not sure how practical it is but idk. I don't think it really has anything to do with penalties. It's an issue of addiction. It's a compulsion.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Eh I know people that have driven blackout drunk that I wouldn't call alcoholics. They just made shitty/selfish decisions. Thankfully none of them hurt anyone, but that's purely luck.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Here's something to repeat after me:

 

Don't fucking drive drunk. I know some people on here think its okay to be a little buzzed and drive. Fuck you.

 

I just lost one of my closest friends, was across the hall from me in seminary, to a fucking idiot who thought it was okay to drive drunk. What's more, his 1-year old daughter was in the backseat and was killed on impact as well. His wife just sent me an email. Just some fucking words on a screen that lets me know one of my best friends is dead because some fucking idiot couldn't take the time to call a goddamn taxi.

 

It is NEVER fucking okay to drive drunk. Ever. No matter the circumstance. Call a fucking cab.

Condolences, friend. Losing people is always hard, but when the circumstances of a death deem it unnecessary, it's about 5 times as hard. I been there with friends/family, and possibly on both ends. It's hard to fathom how someone makes that decision.

Edited December 11, 2017 by BwareDWare94

[OSUViking 505]

Quoting isn't working for me, idk why, so I'll just refer to Cherrys post about welfare.

 

I feel I am the same. I don't plan on kids for now, if ever. I don't think I'd be content on welfare, but generally I am very adaptable. I could live in an off campus environment the rest of my life, frankly. Get a solid job (60k and up by my standards and what I imagine I'll make with an engineering career) and frankly I think I'd be content just going home every night, playing Xbox, going to the gym, and smoking some good weed.

[BwareDWare94 723]

What he's saying is anecdotal evidence doesn't make for a very strong argument. I know both you and Ngata are fully intelligent enough to understand what blots is saying. Please stop playing dumb. There will ALWAYS be lazy people in every field of work in every society and people to pick up their slack. This has literally always been the case. At the restaurant I work at 95% of the women are pretty lazy but when they have direction they work. I see them standing in a corner on their phone and I give them a job. This isn't a generational thing imo. This is a smart phone thing. There are plenty of people in their 30's and 40's in their phone. I've worked with them and I've worked all kinds of jobs.

 

It's easy for me to work hard. At a restaurant I would like to be home before 1 AM and on the job site the faster you get a job done, the more money you make and the fast I can get home and have a drink or some a little herb and come talk shit with you guys on TGP.

 

I have no issue with blots as a person or with the actual point of his arguments. I just don't want what I said to be touched with hyperbole, as it is sometimes, or completely changed to something else, which is what he did in this particular case. Respond to what I say. Don't exaggerate it. Don't project something different and worse with it. It's that simple. Blots and I disagree but that's the length of the tension, as far as I'm concerned. We're just bored dudes on the internet who don't agree.

 

There might always be lazy people, but that doesn't mean employers can't give them consequences for their laziness, or at the very least reward those who aren't lazy with better pay, because they deserve it.

Edited December 11, 2017 by BwareDWare94

[Sarge+ 3,436]

blots, haven't you worked at Wal-Mart before? You really couldn't tell who got their shit done and half of everyone else's shit? Whoever it was is probably a manager now. I feel like you know this... you're just having a scuffle with Bware.

 

I worked at restaurants for almost 6 years of my adult life. At least in the context of a restaurant, it is plain as day who works hard and who doesn't. Now to be fair, as I said, this is only my experience in one industry. I don't really know how it goes in most other fields of work. But it's not hard for me to see a similar pattern emerging.

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

I have no issue with blots as a person or with the actual point of his arguments. I just don't want what I said to be touched with hyperbole, as it is sometimes, or completely changed to something else, which is what he did in this particular case. Respond to what I say. Don't exaggerate it. Don't project something different and worse with it. It's that simple. Blots and I disagree but that's the length of the tension, as far as I'm concerned. We're just bored dudes on the internet who don't agree.

 

There might always be lazy people, but that doesn't mean employers can't give them consequences for their laziness, or at the very least reward those who aren't lazy with better pay, because they deserve it.

Employers can and do fire lazy people. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Has anyone said that employers shouldn't be able to fire a shitty employer? I'm pretty sure everyone is in agreement that talent and hard work can and should be rewarded. I congratulate you on your hard work ethic but I'm still going to need some kind of basis for an argument of you're trying to say our generation is a bunch of worthless lazy fucks. If we're going by anecdotal evidence, I know some lazy people my age but I know more who bust their ass and work more than one job. Hell I know people who work two jobs AND pay their way through school. I can say the same for every age group.

[blotsfan 2,112]

blots, haven't you worked at Wal-Mart before? You really couldn't tell who got their shit done and half of everyone else's shit? Whoever it was is probably a manager now. I feel like you know this... you're just having a scuffle with Bware.

 

I worked at restaurants for almost 6 years of my adult life. At least in the context of a restaurant, it is plain as day who works hard and who doesn't. Now to be fair, as I said, this is only my experience in one industry. I don't really know how it goes in most other fields of work. But it's not hard for me to see a similar pattern emerging.

 

Just because some people slack on the job (see: any post I make from the hours of 7:30-4:30) doesn't mean theres a massive new problem. Have you seen the movie office space? That came out 20 years ago. This isn't a recent phenomenon.

[BwareDWare94 723]

 

Just because some people slack on the job (see: any post I make from the hours of 7:30-4:30) doesn't mean theres a massive new problem. Have you seen the movie office space? That came out 20 years ago. This isn't a recent phenomenon.

 

Who said it was a recent phenomenon? Just because it's been tolerated for years doesn't mean we should continue to tolerate it.

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

Who said it was a recent phenomenon? Just because it's been tolerated for years doesn't mean we should continue to tolerate it.

What do you propose we do about it? Execute them? Put them into concentration camps lol? You can't eliminate laziness, bro. I get that it might be a pet peeve of yours but it can't be legislated save for some crazy authoritarian shit. All the stuff you're talking about is already in place. If you suck at your job and you're lazy, you're probably going to get fired and you're likely not going to get paid well unless you have a valuable skill set, in which case you probably can't be too lazy. Like I said though, congrats on being a super hard worker. We're all happy for you.

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by seanbrock

[Sarge+ 3,436]

 

Just because some people slack on the job (see: any post I make from the hours of 7:30-4:30) doesn't mean theres a massive new problem. Have you seen the movie office space? That came out 20 years ago. This isn't a recent phenomenon.

 

Thanks for admitting that it's easy to see who works hard and who doesn't. That's literally the only point I was making. Not sure what I wrote that led you to imply I think this is a new thing.

 

 

 

Who said it was a recent phenomenon? Just because it's been tolerated for years doesn't mean we should continue to tolerate it.

 

As you've personally seen, blots is proficient at taking what someone actually said and arguing something totally different. It's kinda what he does.

[blotsfan 2,112]

As you've personally seen, blots is proficient at taking what someone actually said and arguing something totally different. It's kinda what he does.

 

Actually, it was well-established in the EU that while there were rumors of a supposed "Endor Holocaust," they were mainly propaganda spread by imperialist sympathizers. The rebellion used deflector shields to prevent debris from hitting the moon. Get your shit together.